Association Between Nephrologist Ownership of Dialysis Facilities and Clinical Outcomes.

Importance: Ownership of US dialysis facilities presents a financial conflict of interest for nephrologists, who may change their clinical practice to improve facility profitability. Objective: To investigate the association between nephrologist ownership of freestanding dialysis facilities and clinical outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was conducted using US Renal Data System data linked to a data set of freestanding nonpediatric dialysis facility owners. Participants were a sample of all adults with fee-for-service Medicare receiving dialysis for end-stage kidney disease from January 2017 to November 2017 at included facilities. Data were analyzed from April 2020 through August 2022. Exposures: Outcomes associated with nephrologist ownership were assessed using a difference-in-differences analysis comparing the difference in outcomes between patients treated by nephrologist owners and patients treated by nonowners within facilities owned by nephrologists after accounting for differences in patient outcomes between nephrologist owners and nonowners in other facilities. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes plausibly associated with nephrologist ownership were evaluated: (1) treatment volumes (missed treatments and transplant waitlist status); (2) erythropoietin-stimulating agent (ESA) use and related outcomes (anemia, defined as hemoglobin level <10 g/dL, and blood transfusions), (3) quality metrics (mortality, hospitalizations, 30-day readmissions, hemodialysis adequacy, arteriovenous fistula use, and hemodialysis catheter use for ≥3 months), and (4) home dialysis use. Results: A cohort of 251 651 patients (median [IQR] age, 66 [46-85] years; 112 054 [44.5%] women; 9765 Asian [3.9%], 86 837 Black [34.5%], and 148 617 White [59.1%]; 38 938 Hispanic [15.5%]) receiving dialysis for end-stage kidney disease were included. Patient treatment by nephrologist owners at their owned facilities was associated with a 2.4 percentage point (95% CI, 1.1-3.8 percentage points) higher probability of home dialysis, a 2.2 percentage point (95% CI, 3.6-0.7 percentage points) lower probability of receiving an ESA, and no significant difference in anemia or blood transfusions. Patient treatment by nephrologist owners at their owned facilities was not associated with differences in missed treatments, transplant waitlisting, mortality, hospitalizations, 30-day readmissions, hemodialysis adequacy, or fistula or long-term dialysis catheter use. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional cohort study found that nephrologist ownership was associated with increased home dialysis use, decreased ESA use, and no change in anemia or blood transfusions.

Challenging Assumptions of Outcomes and Costs Comparing Peritoneal and Hemodialysis.

OBJECTIVES: Policy makers have suggested increasing peritoneal dialysis (PD) would improve end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) outcomes and reduce Medicare spending compared with hemodialysis (HD). We compared mortality, hospitalizations, and Medicare spending between PD and HD among uninsured adults with incident ESKD. METHODS: Using an instrumental variable design, we exploited a natural experiment encouraging PD among the uninsured. Uninsured patients usually receive Medicare at dialysis month 4. For those initiating PD, Medicare covers the first 3 dialysis months, including predialysis services in the calendar month when dialysis started. Starting dialysis later in a calendar month increases predialysis coverage that is essential for PD catheter placements. The policy encourages PD incrementally when ESKD develops later in the month. Dialysis start day appears to be unrelated to patient characteristics and effectively "randomizes patients" to dialysis modality, mitigating selection bias. RESULTS: Starting dialysis later in the month was associated with an increased PD uptake: every week later in the month was associated with an absolute increase of 0.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6%-0.9%) at dialysis day 1 and 0.5% (95% CI 0.3%-0.7%) at dialysis month 12. We observed no significant absolute difference between PD and HD for 12-month mortality (-0.9%, 95% CI -3.3% to 0.8%), hospitalizations during months 7 to 12 (-0.05, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.07), and Medicare spending during months 7 to 12 (-$702, 95% CI -$4004 to $2909). CONCLUSIONS: In an instrumental variable analysis, PD did not result in improved outcomes or lower costs than HD.

Incidence, prevalence, and risk factors of infectious uveitis and scleritis in the United States: A claims-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ocular inflammation causes significant visual morbidity in the United States, yet little is known about the epidemiology of infectious uveitis and scleritis. This study aims to evaluate the epidemiology of infectious uveitis/scleritis employing a large national medical claims database. METHODS: This was a retrospective, case-control study, employing Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database, containing data from 21.5 million privately insured individuals with enrollment for at least 15 months within 2007-2015. Inclusion in the uveitis/scleritis sample required an index uveitis/scleritis diagnosis based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes. Exclusion criteria included index date within 3 months after intraocular surgery. Rates for uveitis/scleritis were determined by anatomic site. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to determine odds ratios for the incidence and prevalence of uveitis/scleritis by anatomic category. FINDINGS: Infectious etiologies accounted for less than 20% of uveitis/scleritis, with mean rates of 18.9 (incidence) and 60.6 (prevalence) per 100,000 persons. The mean prevalences of infectious anterior, intermediate, posterior, panuveitis, and scleritis were 27.7, 0.17, 23.4, 4.4, and 4.6, per 100,000, respectively. Overall risk of prevalent infectious uveitis/scleritis increased with age (OR>3.3 for each decade over age 18, p<0.01), female sex (OR = 1.2, p<0.01), non-Hispanic white race (OR<1 for all other races, p<0.01), as well as the East South Central census division (OR = 1.2, p<0.01), comprising Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee. Medical comorbidities, including HIV infection (OR = 6.4, p<0.01) and rheumatologic disease (OR = 1.9, p<0.01), were common in the infectious uveitis/scleritis cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence and prevalence of infectious uveitis/scleritis in the United States were higher than previously reported estimates but remained lower than in developing countries. Rates varied by age, sex, race, and medical comorbidities, and may reflect differential susceptibility to various infectious agents with disparate geographic distributions within the United States.