Dataset Information

Do remote dialysis services really cost more? An economic analysis of hospital and dialysis modality costs associated with dialysis services in urban, rural and remote settings.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Rates of end-stage kidney disease in Australia are highest in the Northern Territory (NT), with the burden of disease heaviest in remote areas. However, the high cost of delivering dialysis services in remote areas has resulted in centralisation, requiring many people to relocate for treatment. Patients argue that treatment closer to home improves health outcomes and reduces downstream healthcare use. Existing dialysis cost studies have not compared total health care costs associated with treatment in different locations.

Objective

To estimate and compare, from a payer perspective, the observed health service costs (all cause hospital admissions, emergency department presentations and maintenance dialysis) associated with different dialysis models in urban, rural and remote locations.

Methods

Using cost weights attributed to diagnostic codes in the NT Department of Health's hospital admission data set (2008-2014), we calculated the mean (SD) total annual health service costs by dialysis model for 995 dialysis patients. Generalized linear modeling with bootstrapping tested the marginal cost differences between different explanatory variables to estimate 'best casemix'/'worst casemix' cost scenarios.

Results

The mean annual patient hospital expenditure was highest for urban models at $97 928 (SD $21 261) and $43 440 (SD $5 048) and lowest for remote at $19 584 (SD $4 394). When combined with the observed maintenance dialysis costs, expenditure was the highest for urban models at $148 510 (SD $19 774). The incremental cost increase of dialysing in an urban area, compared with a rural area, for a relocated person from a remote area, was $5 648 more and increased further for those from remote and very remote areas to $10 785 and $15 118 respectively.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that dialysis treatment in urban areas for relocated people has health and cost implications that maybe greater than the cost of remote service delivery. The study emphasises the importance of considering all health service costs and cost consequences of service delivery models.

Key points for decision makers

Relocation for dialysis treatment has serious health and economic consequences. Relocated people have low dialysis attendance and high hospital costs in urban areas. While remote dialysis service models are more expensive than urban models, the comparative cost differences are significantly reduced when all health service costs are included. The delivery of equitable and accessible dialysis service models requires a holistic approach that incorporates the needs of the patient; hence dialysis cost studies must consider the full range of cost impacts beyond the dialysis treatments alone.

SUBMITTER: Gorham G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8212525 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAboriginal people in the Northern Territory (NT) suffer the heaviest burden of kidney failure in Australia with most living in remote areas at time of dialysis commencement. As there are few dialysis services in remote areas, many Aboriginal people are required to relocate often permanently, to access treatment. Missing dialysis treatments is not uncommon amongst Aboriginal patients but the relationship between location of dialysis service and dialysis attendance (and subsequent hospital use) has not been explored to date.AimTo examine the relationships between location of dialysis service, dialysis attendance patterns and downstream health service use (overnight hospital admissions, emergency department presentations) among Aboriginal patients in the NT.MethodsUsing linked hospital and dialysis registry datasets we analysed health service activity for 896 Aboriginal maintenance dialysis patients in the NT between 2008 and 2014. Multivariate linear regression and negative binomial regression analyses explored the associations between dialysis location, dialysis attendance and health service use.ResultsWe found missing two or more dialysis treatments per month was more likely for Aboriginal people attending urban services and this was associated with a two-fold increase in the rate of hospital admissions and more than three-fold increase in ED presentations. However, we found higher dialysis attendance and lower health service utilisation for those receiving care in rural and remote settings. When adjusted for age, time on dialysis, region, comorbidities and residence pre-treatment, among Aboriginal people from remote areas, those dialysing in remote areas had lower rates of hospitalisations (IRR 0.56; P < 0.001) when compared to those who relocated and dialysed in urban areas.ConclusionThere is a clear relationship between the provision and uptake of dialysis services in urban, rural and remote areas in the NT and subsequent broader health service utilisation. Our study suggests that the low dialysis attendance associated with relocation and care in urban models for Aboriginal people can potentially be ameliorated by access to rural and remote models and this warrants a rethinking of service delivery policy. If providers are to deliver effective and equitable services, the full range of intended and unintended consequences of a dialysis location should be incorporated into planning decisions.

Project description:BackgroundIntegration of health services might be an efficient strategy for managing multiple chronic conditions in sub-Saharan Africa, considering the scope of treatments and synergies in service delivery. Proven to promote compliance, integration may lead to increased economies-of-scale. However, evidence on the socio-economic consequences of integration for providers and patients is lacking. We assessed the clinical resource use, staff time, relative service efficiency and overall societal costs associated with integrating HIV, diabetes and hypertension services in single one-stop clinics where persons with one or more of these conditions were managed.Methods2273 participants living with HIV infection, diabetes, or hypertension or combinations of these conditions were enrolled in 10 primary health facilities in Tanzania and Uganda and followed-up for up to 12 months. We collected data on resources used from all participants and on out-of-pocket costs in a sub-sample of 1531 participants, while a facility-level costing study was conducted at each facility. Health worker time per participant was assessed in a time-motion morbidity-stratified study among 228 participants. The mean health service cost per month and out-of-pocket costs per participant visit were calculated in 2020 US$ prices. Nested bootstrapping from these samples accounted for uncertainties. A data envelopment approach was used to benchmark the efficiency of the integrated services. Last, we estimated the budgetary consequences of integration, based on prevalence-based projections until 2025, for both country populations.ResultsTheir average retention after 1 year service follow-up was 1911/2273 (84.1%). Five hundred and eighty-two of 2273 (25.6%) participants had two or all three chronic conditions and 1691/2273 (74.4%) had a single condition. During the study, 84/2239 (3.8%) participants acquired a second or third condition. The mean service costs per month of managing two conditions in a single participant were $39.11 (95% CI 33.99, 44.33), $32.18 (95% CI 30.35, 34.07) and $22.65 (95% CI 21.86, 23.43) for the combinations of HIV and diabetes and of HIV and hypertension, diabetes and hypertension, respectively. These costs were 34.4% (95% CI 17.9%, 41.9%) lower as compared to managing any two conditions separately in two different participants. The cost of managing an individual with all three conditions was 48.8% (95% CI 42.1%, 55.3%) lower as compared to managing these conditions separately. Out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure per participant per visit was $7.33 (95% CI 3.70, 15.86). This constituted 23.4% (95% CI 9.9, 54.3) of the total monthly service expenditure per patient and 11.7% (95% CI 7.3, 22.1) of their individual total household income. The integrated clinics' mean efficiency benchmark score was 0.86 (range 0.30-1.00) suggesting undercapacity that could serve more participants without compromising quality of care. The estimated budgetary consequences of managing multi-morbidity in these types of integrated clinics is likely to increase by 21.5% (range 19.2-23.4%) in the next 5 years, including substantial savings of 21.6% on the provision of integrated care for vulnerable patients with multi-morbidities.ConclusionIntegration of HIV services with diabetes and hypertension control reduces both health service and household costs, substantially. It is likely an efficient and equitable way to address the increasing burden of financially vulnerable households among Africa's ageing populations. Additional economic evidence is needed from longer-term larger-scale implementation studies to compare extended integrated care packages directly simultaneously with evidence on sustained clinical outcomes.

Project description:Background and objectivesThe prevalence of ESKD is increasing worldwide. Treating ESKD is disproportionately costly in comparison with its prevalence, mostly due to the direct cost of dialysis therapy. Here, we aim to provide a contemporary cost description of dialysis modalities, including facility-based hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, and home hemodialysis, provided with conventional dialysis machines and the NxStage System One.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsWe constructed a cost-minimization model from the perspective of the Canadian single-payer health care system including all costs related to dialysis care. The labor component of costs consisted of a breakdown of activity-based per patient direct labor requirements. Other costs were taken from statements of operations for the kidney program at Seven Oaks General Hospital (Winnipeg, Canada). All costs are reported in Canadian dollars.ResultsAnnual maintenance expenses were estimated as $64,214 for in-center facility hemodialysis, $43,816 for home hemodialysis with the NxStage System One, $39,236 for home hemodialysis with conventional dialysis machines, and $38,658 for peritoneal dialysis. Training costs for in-center facility hemodialysis, home hemodialysis with the NxStage System One, home hemodialysis with conventional dialysis machines, and peritoneal dialysis are estimated as $0, $16,143, $24,379, and $7157, respectively. The threshold point to achieve cost neutrality was determined to be 9.7 months from in-center hemodialysis to home hemodialysis with the NxStage System One, 12.6 months from in-center hemodialysis to home hemodialysis with conventional dialysis machines, and 3.2 months from in-center hemodialysis to peritoneal dialysis.ConclusionsHome modalities have lower maintenance costs, and beyond a short time horizon, they are most cost efficient when considering their incremental training expenses.PodcastThis article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2018_07_18_CJASNPodcast_18_8_F.mp3.