Alexis F Velázquez1, Rebecca Thorsness2,3, Amal N Trivedi3,4, Kevin H Nguyen3. 1. University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, California. 2. Veterans Affairs New England Healthcare System, Bedford, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island. 4. Providence VA Medical Center, Providence, Rhode Island.
Abstract
Background: The availability of dialysis facilities and distance traveled to receive care can impact health outcomes for patients with newly onset kidney failure. We examined recent changes in county-level number of dialysis facilities between 2012 and 2019 and assessed the association between county-level dialysis facility supply and the distance incident kidney failure patients travel to receive care. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 828,427 adult patients initiating in-center hemodialysis for incident kidney failure between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2019. We calculated the annual county-level number of dialysis facilities, and counties were categorized as having zero, one, two, or three or more dialysis facilities at the time of treatment initiation. We then measured the distance traveled between a patient's home address and dialysis facility at treatment initiation (in miles) and evaluated the association between county-level number of dialysis facilities and distance traveled to initiate treatment. Results: The average annual county-level number of facilities increased from 1.8 to 2.3 between 2012 and 2019. In our study period, 5% of incident adult kidney failure patients resided in a county that had zero dialysis facilities between 2012 and 2019. Compared with counties with three or more dialysis facilities, patients living in counties with no facilities in our study period traveled 14.3 miles (95% CI, 13.4 to 15.2) further for treatment. Conclusions: Kidney failure patients in counties that had no dialysis facilities traveled further, limiting their access to dialysis. Counties with no dialysis facilities at the end of the study period were more rural and had higher poverty than other counties.
Background: The availability of dialysis facilities and distance traveled to receive care can impact health outcomes for patients with newly onset kidney failure. We examined recent changes in county-level number of dialysis facilities between 2012 and 2019 and assessed the association between county-level dialysis facility supply and the distance incident kidney failure patients travel to receive care. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 828,427 adult patients initiating in-center hemodialysis for incident kidney failure between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2019. We calculated the annual county-level number of dialysis facilities, and counties were categorized as having zero, one, two, or three or more dialysis facilities at the time of treatment initiation. We then measured the distance traveled between a patient's home address and dialysis facility at treatment initiation (in miles) and evaluated the association between county-level number of dialysis facilities and distance traveled to initiate treatment. Results: The average annual county-level number of facilities increased from 1.8 to 2.3 between 2012 and 2019. In our study period, 5% of incident adult kidney failure patients resided in a county that had zero dialysis facilities between 2012 and 2019. Compared with counties with three or more dialysis facilities, patients living in counties with no facilities in our study period traveled 14.3 miles (95% CI, 13.4 to 15.2) further for treatment. Conclusions: Kidney failure patients in counties that had no dialysis facilities traveled further, limiting their access to dialysis. Counties with no dialysis facilities at the end of the study period were more rural and had higher poverty than other counties.
Authors: Renee Y Hsia; Hemal K Kanzaria; Tanja Srebotnjak; Judy Maselli; Charles McCulloch; Andrew D Auerbach Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2012-09-29 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Guofen Yan; Alfred K Cheung; Jennie Z Ma; Alison J Yu; Tom Greene; M Norman Oliver; Wei Yu; Keith C Norris Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2013-03-14 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Nader N Massarweh; Yi-Ju Chiang; Yan Xing; George J Chang; Alex B Haynes; Y Nancy You; Barry W Feig; Janice N Cormier Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Louise M Moist; Jennifer L Bragg-Gresham; Ronald L Pisoni; Rajiv Saran; Takashi Akiba; Stefan H Jacobson; Shunichi Fukuhara; Donna L Mapes; Hugh C Rayner; Akira Saito; Friedrich K Port Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2008-03-03 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: J Mark Stephens; Samuel Brotherton; Stephan C Dunning; Larry C Emerson; David T Gilbertson; David J Harrison; John J Kochevar; Ann C McClellan; William M McClellan; Shaowei Wan; Matthew Gitlin Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2013-04-11 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Rebecca Thorsness; Shailender Swaminathan; Yoojin Lee; Benjamin D Sommers; Rajnish Mehrotra; Kevin H Nguyen; Daeho Kim; Maricruz Rivera-Hernandez; Amal N Trivedi Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 14.978
Authors: Kevin H Nguyen; Rebecca Thorsness; Susan Hayes; Daeho Kim; Rajnish Mehrotra; Shailender Swaminathan; Navya Baranwal; Yoojin Lee; Maricruz Rivera-Hernandez; Amal N Trivedi Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-10-01