Reducing a peritoneal dialysis program's cost by changing from a vendor-provided to a program-provided system for general medical supplies: significant savings in CCPD.

An examination of the costs associated with outpatient chronic peritoneal dialysis prompted us to investigate the charges for general medical supplies used by patients on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) and continuous cycling peritoneal dialysis (CCPD) in our hospital-owned, not-for-profit peritoneal dialysis program. The items used by patients to perform their dialysis exchanges and daily exit site care included 4 x 3 and 2 x 2 sterile gauze pads, antibacterial soap, masks, tape, and betadine swabsticks. The charges for these supplies when purchased from the dialysis vendor were compared with charges for the same items if purchased directly from hospital stores by the peritoneal dialysis program and then distributed to the patients. This initial analysis suggested a considerable savings if the peritoneal dialysis program provided the supplies. Based on this estimated savings, in July 1995, the peritoneal dialysis program changed from a vendor-provided to a program-provided system for general supplies used by CAPD and CCPD patients. This study examined the differences in charges expressed as $/patient-month for two periods: July 1994 to June 1995 (when all general medical supplies were provided by dialysis vendors directly to the CAPD and CCPD patients) and July 1995 to May 1996 (when the peritoneal dialysis program purchased general medical supplies from hospital stores and distributed these supplies directly to the patients). The median vendor charges for CAPD patients (n = 21 during 1994 to 1995 and n = 18 during 1995 to 1996) were not significantly different between the two periods. In fact, the charges were slightly higher during the 1995 to 1996 period ($1,264/patient-month v $1,193/patient-month during the vendor-provided period of July 1994 to June 1995, P = 0.67). The median vendor charges for patients on CCPD were significantly lower during the 1995 to 1996 period when the peritoneal dialysis program provided the general medical supplies used for CCPD ($1,110/patient-month v $1,389/patient-month during 1994 to 1995, P = 0.003). There were 30 CCPD patients during the 1994 to 1995 period and 27 patients on CCPD during 1995 to 1996. The total charges for CAPD and CCPD patients combined included dialysis vendor charges (dialysis solution, tubing, cycler rental) and charges from hospital stores. These total charges were lower in the July 1995 to May 1996 period when general medical supplies were purchased directly from hospital stores rather than from the dialysis vendors: $1,201/patient-month versus $1,360/patient-month (P = 0.03). The median hospital store charges rose slightly during the July 1995 to May 1996 period when supplies were purchased by the peritoneal dialysis program from hospital stores ($31/patient-month v $21/patient-month, P = 0.37, during the July 1994 to June 1995 period when general medical supplies were purchased directly from dialysis vendors). However, despite the rise in charges from hospital stores, an overall savings of $149/patient-month was achieved when the peritoneal dialysis program purchased and provided general medical supplies used by the peritoneal dialysis patients. This $149/patient-month equals $1,788 savings per dialysis year for each patient on peritoneal dialysis for that year. Significant savings in the cost of a chronic peritoneal dialysis program may therefore occur if less expensive sources for the general medical supplies used by CAPD and, especially, CCPD patients are found.