The Medicare program’s transition in 2004 to tiered fee-for-service physician reimbursement for dialysis care had the unintended consequence of reducing use of home dialysis, according to a paper co-authored by a nonresident scholar at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy and colleagues from Stanford University and Baylor College of Medicine.
More than 100,000 people develop end-stage renal disease every year in the United States. Due to a shortage of kidneys available for transplantation, the vast majority receive dialysis, which can be provided through one of three methods. In-center hemodialysis is the most common and involves patients going to a dialysis facility three or four times per week to receive therapy; home-based dialysis therapies (which include peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis) are alternatives that offer more flexibility and lifestyle benefits for some patients.
The authors of “Effects of Physician Payment Reform on Provision of Home Dialysis” conducted analyses comparing patients with traditional Medicare coverage who were affected by the policy with others who have Medicare Advantage and were unaffected by the policy. The analyses consisted of a cohort study of patients starting dialysis in the U.S. in the three years before and the three years after payment reform. The study also examined whether the policy had a more pronounced influence on dialysis method assignment in areas most affected by the policy due to lower costs of traveling to dialysis facilities.
Patients with traditional Medicare coverage experienced a 0.7 percent reduction in the absolute probability of home dialysis use following payment reform compared with patients with Medicare Advantage. Patients living in areas with larger dialysis facilities (where payment reform made in-center hemodialysis comparatively more lucrative for physicians) experienced a 0.9 percent reduction in home dialysis use following payment reform compared with patients living in areas with smaller facilities (where payment reform made in-center hemodialysis comparatively less lucrative for physicians).
The paper was co-authored by Dr. Kevin Erickson, nonresident scholar in the Baker Institute’s Center for Health and Biosciences, assistant professor in the Section of Nephrology and an investigator at the Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety at Baylor; Dr. Wolfgang Winkelmayer, the Gordon A. Cain Chair of Nephrology and professor of medicine at Baylor; Dr. Glenn Chertow, professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Nephrology at Stanford’s School of Medicine; and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor of medicine at Stanford. It was published in the American Journal of Managed Care.
“We found that national physician payment reform enacted by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in 2004 in an effort to encourage more frequent face-to-face dialysis visits and improve the quality of care resulted in an unintended consequence of relatively fewer patients choosing home dialysis,” the authors wrote. “The tiered fee-for-service payment system enacted in 2004 continues to govern physician reimbursement for in-center hemodialysis care and, consequently, may continue to discourage home dialysis use in certain patient populations. These findings highlight both an area of policy failure and the importance of considering unintended consequences of future efforts to reform physician payment.”
Due to concern that home dialysis is underused and that some patients with end-stage renal disease could benefit from increased autonomy and health-related quality of life if they received home dialysis, the House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means’ Subcommittee on Health asked the U.S. Government Accountability Office to investigate key barriers to home dialysis use. The GAO’s October 2015 report highlighted the current physician payment policy’s incentives as a potential barrier to home dialysis use. However, the GAO investigation of this topic was limited to interviews with physicians and physician associations. The study co-authored by Erickson provides empirical evidence supporting the concern raised by the GAO.
Texas A&M University Health Science CenterTAMUhealthsciences
"We're expected to try to treat the patients' pain, but the only thing that is going to make someone seeking opioids happy is to feed their addiction. I have to...
Welcome home: After one year, local Veterans Court in Florida honors first graduate https://t.co/guLtso1fVa via @staugrecord
Today’s #VeteranOfTheDay is @usairforce Veteran Gary Peterson https://t.co/nvYwE7P7sM #AirForce
U.S. Department of Veterans AffairsVeteransAffairs
Today’s #VeteranOfTheDay is U.S. Air Force Veteran Gary Peterson. Gary served from 1990 to 2013 during the Gulf War and Iraq War. Gary was born in Roswell, New...
.@SecShulkin: “I think we’re making progress, but we have a lot more work to do.” https://t.co/8UlvXGpvN6 via @foxnews
MD Anderson Cancer Center@MDAndersonNews
#Ovariancancer survivor: “Life is 10% of what happens to us and 90% how we react to it.” https://t.co/QGvDS8gcJH… https://t.co/21hXNOu7oc
New hormone, asprosin, able to cross the blood-brain barrier and stimulate the brain’s hunger center. https://t.co/XwP5un8ElF #research
Baylor College of MedicineBaylorCollegeOfMedicine
The Cancer Research Institute brings Immunotherapy Patient Summit to the Dan L Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine. #cancer
MD Anderson Cancer Center@MDAndersonNews
#Breastcancer survivor explains how advance care planning helped her prepare for multiple scenarios… https://t.co/Mufvcn1btA
@NrsHolly We appreciate the RT ^SF
@JaimeESanchezMD Thanks for sharing ^SF
@CriscellaTX We appreciate the RT ^SF
MD Anderson Cancer CenterMDAnderson
“It takes a lot of strength and courage to get to where you are today, so let what you have gone through be your strength.” #endcancer
University of Houston@UHouston
RT @UHCougarMBK: RT this W! • FINAL Coogs defeat highest ranked opponent since Jan 6, 1996… @iRob_G leads all with 24 pts… @CoreyTheGreat_…