Laura J McPherson1, Elizabeth R Walker2, Yi-Ting Hana Lee3, Jennifer C Gander4, Zhensheng Wang2,3, Amber M Reeves-Daniel5, Teri Browne6, Matthew J Ellis7,8, Ana P Rossi9, Stephen O Pastan10, Rachel E Patzer11,2,3. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 2. Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. Health Services Research Center, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 4. Center for Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Georgia, Atlanta, Georgia. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 6. College of Social Work, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina. 7. Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 8. Department of Surgery, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 9. Department of Transplantation, Piedmont Transplant Institute, Piedmont Healthcare, Atlanta, Georgia. 10. Renal Division, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 11. Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia rpatzer@emory.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Dialysis facilities in the United States play a key role in access to kidney transplantation. Previous studies reported that patients treated at for-profit facilities are less likely to be waitlisted and receive a transplant, but their effect on early steps in the transplant process is unknown. The study's objective was to determine the association between dialysis facility profit status and critical steps in the transplantation process in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: In this retrospective cohort study, we linked referral and evaluation data from all nine transplant centers in the Southeast with United States Renal Data System surveillance data. The cohort study included 33,651 patients with kidney failure initiating dialysis from January 1, 2012 to August 31, 2016. Patients were censored for event (date of referral, evaluation, or waitlisting), death, or end of study (August 31, 2017 for referral and March 1, 2018 for evaluation and waitlisting). The primary exposure was dialysis facility profit status: for profit versus nonprofit. The primary outcome was referral for evaluation at a transplant center after dialysis initiation. Secondary outcomes were start of evaluation at a transplant center after referral and waitlisting. RESULTS: Of the 33,651 patients with incident kidney failure, most received dialysis treatment at a for-profit facility (85%). For-profit (versus nonprofit) facilities had a lower cumulative incidence difference for referral within 1 year of dialysis (-4.5%; 95% confidence interval, -6.0% to -3.2%). In adjusted analyses, for-profit versus nonprofit facilities had lower referral (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.80 to 0.88). Start of evaluation within 6 months of referral (-1.0%; 95% confidence interval, -3.1% to 1.3%) and waitlisting within 6 months of evaluation (1.0%; 95% confidence interval, -1.2 to 3.3) did not meaningfully differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest lower access to referral among patients dialyzing in for-profit facilities in the Southeast United States, but no difference in starting the evaluation and waitlisting by facility profit status.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Dialysis facilities in the United States play a key role in access to kidney transplantation. Previous studies reported that patients treated at for-profit facilities are less likely to be waitlisted and receive a transplant, but their effect on early steps in the transplant process is unknown. The study's objective was to determine the association between dialysis facility profit status and critical steps in the transplantation process in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: In this retrospective cohort study, we linked referral and evaluation data from all nine transplant centers in the Southeast with United States Renal Data System surveillance data. The cohort study included 33,651 patients with kidney failure initiating dialysis from January 1, 2012 to August 31, 2016. Patients were censored for event (date of referral, evaluation, or waitlisting), death, or end of study (August 31, 2017 for referral and March 1, 2018 for evaluation and waitlisting). The primary exposure was dialysis facility profit status: for profit versus nonprofit. The primary outcome was referral for evaluation at a transplant center after dialysis initiation. Secondary outcomes were start of evaluation at a transplant center after referral and waitlisting. RESULTS: Of the 33,651 patients with incident kidney failure, most received dialysis treatment at a for-profit facility (85%). For-profit (versus nonprofit) facilities had a lower cumulative incidence difference for referral within 1 year of dialysis (-4.5%; 95% confidence interval, -6.0% to -3.2%). In adjusted analyses, for-profit versus nonprofit facilities had lower referral (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.80 to 0.88). Start of evaluation within 6 months of referral (-1.0%; 95% confidence interval, -3.1% to 1.3%) and waitlisting within 6 months of evaluation (1.0%; 95% confidence interval, -1.2 to 3.3) did not meaningfully differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest lower access to referral among patients dialyzing in for-profit facilities in the Southeast United States, but no difference in starting the evaluation and waitlisting by facility profit status.
Authors: Amy D Waterman; John D Peipert; Christina J Goalby; Katrina M Dinkel; Huiling Xiao; Krista L Lentine Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2015-08-20 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Jonathan A C Sterne; Ian R White; John B Carlin; Michael Spratt; Patrick Royston; Michael G Kenward; Angela M Wood; James R Carpenter Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-06-29
Authors: Sudeshna Paul; Laura C Plantinga; Stephen O Pastan; Jennifer C Gander; Sumit Mohan; Rachel E Patzer Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2018-01-25 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Megan L Salter; Babak Orandi; Mara A McAdams-DeMarco; Andrew Law; Lucy A Meoni; Bernard G Jaar; Stephen M Sozio; Wen Hong Linda Kao; Rulan S Parekh; Dorry L Segev Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2014-08-28 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Rachel E Patzer; Sandra Amaral; Haimanot Wasse; Nataliya Volkova; David Kleinbaum; William M McClellan Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2009-04-01 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Rachel E Patzer; Samantha Retzloff; Jade Buford; Jennifer Gander; Teri Browne; Heather Jones; Matt Ellis; Kelley Canavan; Alexander Berlin; Laura Mulloy; Eric Gibney; Leighann Sauls; Dori Muench; Amber Reeves-Daniel; Carlos Zayas; Derek DuBay; Rich Mutell; Stephen O Pastan Journal: Curr Transplant Rep Date: 2021-10-31