What is the best setting for receiving dialysis vascular access repair and maintenance services?

INTRODUCTION: Advances in dialysis vascular access (DVA) management have changed where beneficiaries receive this care. The effectiveness, safety, quality, and economy of different care settings have been questioned. This study compares patient outcomes of receiving DVA services in the freestanding office-based center (FOC) to those of the hospital outpatient department (HOPD). It also examines whether outcomes differ for a centrally managed system of FOCs (CMFOC) compared to all other FOCs (AOFOC). METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of clinically and demographically similar patients within Medicare claims available through United States Renal Data System (USRDS) (2010-2013) who received at least 80% of DVA services in an FOC (n = 80,831) or HOPD (n = 133,965). Separately, FOC population is divided into CMFOC (n = 20,802) and AOFOC (n = 80,267). Propensity matching was used to control for clinical, demographic, and functional characteristics across populations. RESULTS: FOC patients experienced significantly better outcomes, including lower annual mortality (14.6% vs. 17.2%, p<0.001) and DVA-related infections (0.16 vs. 0.20, p<0.001), fewer hospitalizations (1.65 vs. 1.91, p<0.001), and lower total per-member-per-month (PMPM) payments ($5042 vs. $5361, p<0.001) than HOPD patients. CMFOC patients had lower annual mortality (12.5% vs. 13.8%, p<0.001), PMPM payments (DVA services) ($1486 vs. $1533, p<0.001) and hospitalizations ($1752 vs. $1816, p<0.001) than AOFOC patients. CONCLUSIONS: Where nephrologists send patients for DVA services can impact patient clinical and economic outcomes. This research confirmed that patients who received DVA care in the FOC had better outcomes than those treated in the HOPD. The organizational culture and clinical oversight of the CMFOC may result in more favorable outcomes than receiving care in AOFOC.

Clinical and economic value of performing dialysis vascular access procedures in a freestanding office-based center as compared with the hospital outpatient department among Medicare ESRD beneficiaries.

Dialysis vascular access (DVA) care is being increasingly provided in freestanding office-based centers (FOC). Small-scale studies have suggested that DVA care in a FOC results in favorable patient outcomes and lower costs. To further evaluate this issue, data were drawn from incident and prevalent ESRD patients within a 4-year sample (2006-2009) of Medicare claims (USRDS) on cases who receive at least 80% of their DVA care in a FOC or a hospital outpatient department (HOPD). Using propensity score matching techniques, cases with a similar clinical and demographic profile from these two sites of service were matched. Medicare utilization, payments, and patient outcomes were compared across the matched cohorts (n = 27,613). Patients treated in the FOC had significantly better outcomes (p < 0.001), including fewer related or unrelated hospitalizations (3.8 vs. 4.4), vascular access-related infections (0.18 vs. 0.29), and septicemia-related hospitalizations (0.15 vs. 0.18). Mortality rate was lower (47.9% vs. 53.5%) as were PMPM payments ($4,982 vs. $5,566). This study shows that DVA management provided in a FOC has multiple advantages over that provided in a HOPD.

A retrospective comparison of clinical outcomes and Medicare expenditures in skilled nursing facility residents with chronic wounds.

Medicare skilled nursing facility (SNF) residents with chronic wounds require more resources and have relatively high healthcare expenditures compared to Medicare patients without wounds. A retrospective cohort study was conducted using 2006 Medicare Chronic Condition Warehouse claims data for SNF, inpatient, outpatient hospital, and physician supplier settings along with 2006 Long-Term Care Minimum Data Set (MDS) information to compare Medicare expenditures between two groups of SNF residents with a diagnosis of pressure, venous, ischemic, or diabetic ulcers whose wounds healed during the 10-month study period. The study group (n = 372) was managed using a structured, comprehensive wound management protocol provided by an external wound management team. The matched comparison group consisted of 311 SNF residents who did not receive care from the wound management team. Regression analyses indicate that after controlling for resident comorbidities and wound severity, study group residents experienced lower rates of wound-related hospitalization per day (0.08% versus 0.21%, P < 0.01) and shorter wound episodes (94 days versus 115 days, P < 0.01) than comparison group patients. Total Medicare costs were $21,449.64 for the study group and $40,678.83 for the comparison group (P < 0.01) or $229.07 versus $354.26 (P < 0.01) per resident episode day. Additional studies including wounds that do not heal are warranted. Increasing the number of SNF residents receiving the care described in this study could lead to significant Medicare cost savings. Incorporating wound clinical outcomes into a pay-for-performance measures for SNFs could increase broader SNF adoption of comprehensive wound care programs to treat chronic wounds.

How a new 'public plan' could affect hospitals' finances and private insurance premiums.

Two key health reform bills in the House of Representatives and Senate include the option of a "public plan" as an additional source of health coverage. At least initially, the plan would primarily be structured to cover many of the uninsured and those who now have individual coverage. Because it is possible, and perhaps even likely, that this new public payer would pay less than private payers for the same services, such a plan could negatively affect hospital margins. Hospitals may attempt to recoup losses by shifting costs to private payers. We outline the financial pressures that hospitals and private payers could experience under various assumptions. High uninsured enrollment in a public plan would bolster hospital margins; however, this effect is reversed if the privately insured enter a public plan in large proportions, potentially stressing the hospital industry and increasing private insurance premiums.