Background: Poor adherence to scheduled dialysis treatments is common and can cause adverse clinical and economic outcomes. In 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation launched the Comprehensive ESRD Care (CEC) Model, a novel modification of the Accountable Care Organization framework. Many model participants reported efforts to increase dialysis adherence and promptly reschedule missed treatments. Methods: With Medicare databases covering 2014-2019, we used difference-in-differences models to compare treatment adherence among patients aligned to 1037 CEC facilities relative to those aligned to matched comparison facilities, while accounting for their differences at baseline. Using dates of service, we identified patients who typically received three weekly treatments and the days when treatments typically occurred. Skipped treatments were defined as days when the patient was not hospitalized but did not receive an expected treatment, and rescheduled treatments as days when a patient who had skipped their previous treatment received an additional treatment before their next expected treatment date. Results: Patients in the CEC Model had higher odds of attending as-scheduled sessions relative to the comparison group, although the effect was only marginally significant (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.04, P=0.08). Effects were stronger among females (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.06, P=0.06) than males (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.04, P=0.49), and among those aged <70 years (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.05, P=0.04) than those aged ≥70 years (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.04, P=0.96). The CEC was associated with higher odds of rescheduled sessions (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.14, P<0.001). Effects were significant for both sexes, but were larger among males (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.18, P<0.001) than females (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.13, P=0.01), and effects were significant among those <70 years (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.17, P<0.001), but not those ≥70 years (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.07, P=0.80). Conclusions: The CEC Model is intended to incentivize strategies to prevent costly interventions. Because poor dialysis adherence may precipitate hospitalizations or other adverse events, many CEC Model participants encouraged adherence and promptly rescheduled missed treatments as strategic priorities. This study suggests these efforts were a success, although the absolute magnitudes of the effects were modest.
Background: Poor adherence to scheduled dialysis treatments is common and can cause adverse clinical and economic outcomes. In 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation launched the Comprehensive ESRD Care (CEC) Model, a novel modification of the Accountable Care Organization framework. Many model participants reported efforts to increase dialysis adherence and promptly reschedule missed treatments. Methods: With Medicare databases covering 2014-2019, we used difference-in-differences models to compare treatment adherence among patients aligned to 1037 CEC facilities relative to those aligned to matched comparison facilities, while accounting for their differences at baseline. Using dates of service, we identified patients who typically received three weekly treatments and the days when treatments typically occurred. Skipped treatments were defined as days when the patient was not hospitalized but did not receive an expected treatment, and rescheduled treatments as days when a patient who had skipped their previous treatment received an additional treatment before their next expected treatment date. Results: Patients in the CEC Model had higher odds of attending as-scheduled sessions relative to the comparison group, although the effect was only marginally significant (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.04, P=0.08). Effects were stronger among females (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.06, P=0.06) than males (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.04, P=0.49), and among those aged <70 years (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.05, P=0.04) than those aged ≥70 years (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.04, P=0.96). The CEC was associated with higher odds of rescheduled sessions (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.14, P<0.001). Effects were significant for both sexes, but were larger among males (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.18, P<0.001) than females (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.13, P=0.01), and effects were significant among those <70 years (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.17, P<0.001), but not those ≥70 years (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.07, P=0.80). Conclusions: The CEC Model is intended to incentivize strategies to prevent costly interventions. Because poor dialysis adherence may precipitate hospitalizations or other adverse events, many CEC Model participants encouraged adherence and promptly rescheduled missed treatments as strategic priorities. This study suggests these efforts were a success, although the absolute magnitudes of the effects were modest.
Authors: Issa Al Salmi; Maria Larkina; Mia Wang; Lalita Subramanian; Hal Morgenstern; Stefan H Jacobson; Raymond Hakim; Francesca Tentori; Rajiv Saran; Takashi Akiba; Natalia A Tomilina; Friedrich K Port; Bruce M Robinson; Ronald L Pisoni Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2018-08-23 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Rajiv Saran; Jennifer L Bragg-Gresham; Hugh C Rayner; David A Goodkin; Marcia L Keen; Paul C Van Dijk; Kiyoshi Kurokawa; Luis Piera; Akira Saito; Shunichi Fukuhara; Eric W Young; Philip J Held; Friedrich K Port Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: J E Leggat; S M Orzol; T E Hulbert-Shearon; T A Golper; C A Jones; P J Held; F K Port Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 1998-07 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: P L Kimmel; R A Peterson; K L Weihs; S J Simmens; D H Boyle; D Verme; W O Umana; J H Veis; S Alleyne; I Cruz Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 1995-04 Impact factor: 10.121