Financial Incentives to Facilities and Clinicians Treating Patients With End-stage Kidney Disease and Use of Home Dialysis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Yunan Ji, Liran Einav, Neale Mahoney, Amy Finkelstein, Yunan Ji, Liran Einav, Neale Mahoney, Amy Finkelstein

Abstract

Importance: Home dialysis rates for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) treatment are substantially lower in the US than in other high-income countries, yet there is limited knowledge on how to increase these rates.

Objective: To report results from the first year of a nationwide randomized clinical trial that provides financial incentives to ESKD facilities and managing clinicians to increase home dialysis rates.

Design, setting, and participants: Results were analyzed from the first year of the End-Stage Renal Disease Treatment Choice (ETC) model, a multiyear, mandatory-participation randomized clinical trial designed and implemented by the US Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation. Data were reported on Medicare patients with ESKD 66 years or older who initiated treatment with dialysis in 2021, with data collection through December 31, 2021; the study included all eligible ESKD facilities and managing clinicians. Eligible hospital referral regions (HRRs) were randomly assigned to the ETC (91 HRRs) or a control group (211 HRRs).

Interventions: The ESKD facilities and managing clinicians received financial incentives for home dialysis use.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with ESKD who received any home dialysis during the first 90 days of treatment. Secondary outcomes included other measures of home dialysis and patient volume and characteristics.

Results: Among the 302 HRRs eligible for randomization, 18 621 eligible patients initiated dialysis treatment during the study period (mean [SD] age, 74.8 [1.05] years; 7856 women [42.1%]; 10 765 men [57.9%]; 859 Asian [5.2%], 3280 [17.7%] Black, 730 [4.3%] Hispanic, 239 North American Native, and 12 394 managing clinicians. The mean (SD) share of patients with any home dialysis during the first 90 days was 20.6% (7.8%) in the control group and was 0.12 percentage points higher (95% CI, -1.42 to 1.65 percentage points; P = .88) in the ETC group, a statistically nonsignificant difference. None of the secondary outcomes differed significantly between groups.

Conclusions and relevance: The trial results found that in the first year of the US Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation-designed ETC model, HRRs assigned to the model did not have statistically significantly different rates in home dialysis compared with control HRRs. This raises questions about the efficacy of the financial incentives provided, although further evaluation is needed, as the size of these incentives will increase in subsequent years.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05005572.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Drs Ji, Einav, Finkelstein, and Mahoney reported grants from J-PAL North America and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) during the conduct of the study. Dr Mahoney reported being currently on leave at the White House National Economic Council from Stanford University and the National Bureau of Economic Research. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure.. CONSORT Diagram of Hospital Referral Region…
Figure.. CONSORT Diagram of Hospital Referral Region (HRR) Eligibility and Randomization in End-Stage Renal Disease Treatment Choice (ETC)

References

    1. Morgan P, Kirchhoff S. Medicare Advantage (MA) coverage of end stage renal disease (ESRD) and network requirement changes. Accessed August 13, 2022.
    1. Department of Health and Human Services . Advancing American kidney health. Accessed May 23, 2022.
    1. Fenton SS, Schaubel DE, Desmeules M, et al. . Hemodialysis versus peritoneal dialysis: a comparison of adjusted mortality rates. Am J Kidney Dis. 1997;30(3):334-342. doi:10.1016/S0272-6386(97)90276-6
    1. Pike E, Hamidi V, Ringerike T, Wisloff T, Klemp M. More use of peritoneal dialysis gives significant savings: a systematic review and health economic decision model. J Clin Med Res. 2017;9(2):104-116. doi:10.14740/jocmr2817w
    1. Mehrotra R, Chiu YW, Kalantar-Zadeh K, Bargman J, Vonesh E. Similar outcomes with hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis in patients with end-stage renal disease. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(2):110-118. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.352
    1. Just PM, Riella MC, Tschosik EA, Noe LL, Bhattacharyya SK, de Charro F. Economic evaluations of dialysis treatment modalities. Health Policy. 2008;86(2-3):163-180. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.12.004
    1. Mendelssohn DC, Mujais SK, Soroka SD, et al. . A prospective evaluation of renal replacement therapy modality eligibility. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2009;24(2):555-561. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfn484
    1. United States Renal Data System . USRDS annual data report: epidemiology of kidney disease in the United States. Accessed May 1, 2022.
    1. van der Klaauw W. Regression-discontinuity analysis. In: Durlauf SN, Blume LE, eds. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. 2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan; 2008:1-6.
    1. Oliver MJ, Quinn RR, Richardson EP, Kiss AJ, Lamping DL, Manns BJ. Home care assistance and the utilization of peritoneal dialysis. Kidney Int. 2007;71(7):673-678. doi:10.1038/sj.ki.5002107
    1. Oliver MJ, Garg AX, Blake PG, et al. . Impact of contraindications, barriers to self-care and support on incident peritoneal dialysis utilization. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010;25(8):2737-2744. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfq085
    1. Prakash S, Coffin R, Schold J, et al. . Travel distance and home dialysis rates in the United States. Perit Dial Int. 2014;34(1):24-32. doi:10.3747/pdi.2012.00234
    1. Golper TA, Saxena AB, Piraino B, et al. . Systematic barriers to the effective delivery of home dialysis in the United States: a report from the Public Policy/Advocacy Committee of the North American Chapter of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2011;58(6):879-885. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2011.06.028
    1. US Government Accountability Office . End-stage renal disease: Medicare payment refinements could promote increased use of home dialysis. Accessed May 1, 2022.
    1. Qamar M, Bender F, Rault R, Piraino B. The United States’ perspectives on home dialysis. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2009;16(3):189-197. doi:10.1053/j.ackd.2009.02.005
    1. Erickson KF, Winkelmayer WC, Chertow GM, Bhattacharya J. Effects of physician payment reform on provision of home dialysis. Am J Manag Care. 2016;22(6):e215-e223.
    1. Hirth RA, Turenne MN, Wheeler JRC, et al. . The initial impact of Medicare’s new prospective payment system for kidney dialysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2013;62(4):662-669. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2013.03.044
    1. Lin E, Cheng XS, Chin KK, et al. . Home dialysis in the prospective payment system era. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017;28(10):2993-3004. doi:10.1681/ASN.2017010041
    1. US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services . The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Innovation Center. Accessed May 23, 2022.
    1. US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services . Medicare program; specialty care models to improve quality of care and reduce expenditures. Accessed August 13, 2022.
    1. US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services . ESRD Treatment Choices (ETC) model. Accessed May 23, 2022.
    1. Finkelstein A, Ji Y, Mahoney N, Skinner J. The impact of Medicare bundled payments: pre-analysis plan. Accessed March 28, 2018.
    1. Jacobson M, Earle CC, Price M, Newhouse JP. How Medicare’s payment cuts for cancer chemotherapy drugs changed patterns of treatment. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(7):1391-1399. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0563
    1. Clemens J, Gottlieb JD. Do physicians’ financial incentives affect medical treatment and patient health? Am Econ Rev. 2014;104(4):1320-1349. doi:10.1257/aer.104.4.1320
    1. Einav L, Finkelstein A, Mahoney N. Provider incentives and healthcare costs: evidence from long-term care hospitals. Econometrica. 2018;86(6):2161-2219. doi:10.3982/ECTA15022
    1. Zhang Q, Thamer M, Kshirsagar O, Zhang Y. Impact of the End Stage Renal Disease Prospective Payment System on the use of peritoneal dialysis. Kidney Int Rep. 2016;2(3):350-358. doi:10.1016/j.ekir.2016.12.004
    1. DaVita . 2004 Annual report. Accessed August 13, 2022.
    1. Eliason P, Heebsh B, League R, McDevitt R, Roberts J. The effect of bundled payments on provider behavior and patient outcomes: evidence from the dialysis industry. Accessed August 13, 2022.
    1. Finkelstein A, Ji Y, Mahoney N, Skinner J. Mandatory Medicare bundled payment program for lower extremity joint replacement and discharge to institutional postacute care: interim analysis of the first year of a 5-year randomized trial. JAMA. 2018;320(9):892-900. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.12346

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa