Section of Nephrology and.
Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University, Houston, Texas.
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2020 Mar;31(3):579-590. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2019060575. Epub 2020 Feb 4.
In 2011, inclusion of injectable medications into an expanded ESKD payment bundle prompted concerns that dialysis facilities facing higher costs might close, disrupting care delivery and access to care. Whether this policy change influenced dialysis facility closures is unknown.
To examine whether facility closures increased after 2011 and whether factors influencing closures changed, we analyzed US Renal Data System registry data to identify all patients receiving in-center hemodialysis from 2006 through 2015 and to track dialysis facility closures. We used interrupted time series logistic regression models and estimated marginal effects to examine immediate and longer-term changes in the likelihood of being affected by facility closures following payment reform. We also examined whether associations between selected predictors of closures indicating populations at "high risk" of closure (patient characteristics, facility characteristics, and geography-related characteristics) and closures changed after payment reform.
Dialysis facility closures were uncommon over the study period. In adjusted models, the relative odds of experiencing a closure declined by 37% (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.59 to 0.67) immediately after payment reform and declined by an additional 6% (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91 to 0.97) annually thereafter, corresponding to a 0.3% lower absolute probability of closure in 2015 in association with payment reform. Patients who were black and who dialyzed at small, hospital-based facilities experienced slight increases in closures following payment reform, whereas Hispanic and Medicare/Medicaid dual-eligible patients experienced slight decreases in closures.
Expansion of the ESKD payment bundle was not associated with increased closure of dialysis facilities, although the likelihood of closures changed slightly for some higher-risk populations.
2011 年,将注射药物纳入扩大的终末期肾病(ESKD)支付套餐中,引发了人们的担忧,即面临更高成本的透析机构可能会关闭,从而扰乱护理的提供和获得。该政策变化是否会影响透析机构的关闭尚不清楚。
为了研究 2011 年后是否增加了机构关闭的情况,以及影响关闭的因素是否发生了变化,我们分析了美国肾脏数据系统登记处的数据,以确定 2006 年至 2015 年期间所有接受中心血液透析的患者,并跟踪透析机构的关闭情况。我们使用中断时间序列逻辑回归模型和估计边际效应来检查支付改革后机构关闭对患者的影响的即时和长期变化。我们还检查了表示“高风险”关闭人群的选定关闭预测指标(患者特征、机构特征和与地理相关的特征)与关闭之间的关联在支付改革后是否发生了变化。
在研究期间,透析机构的关闭情况并不常见。在调整后的模型中,经历关闭的相对几率在支付改革后立即下降了 37%(优势比[OR],0.63;95%置信区间[95%CI],0.59 至 0.67),此后每年又下降了 6%(OR,0.94;95%CI,0.91 至 0.97),这对应于支付改革后 2015 年关闭的绝对概率降低了 0.3%。在支付改革后,黑人患者和在小型医院基地设施透析的患者的关闭率略有上升,而西班牙裔和医疗保险/医疗补助双重合格的患者的关闭率略有下降。
ESKD 支付套餐的扩大与透析机构关闭的增加无关,尽管一些高风险人群的关闭可能性略有变化。