Dataset Information

Costs of Assisted Home Dialysis: A Single-Payer Canadian Model From Manitoba.

ABSTRACT:

Rationale & objective

The prevalence of kidney failure is increasing globally. Most of these patients will require life-sustaining dialysis at a substantial cost to the health care system. Assisted peritoneal dialysis (PD) and assisted home hemodialysis (HD) are potential alternatives to in-center HD and have demonstrated equivalent outcomes with respect to mortality and morbidity. We aim to describe the costs associated with assisted continuous cycling PD (CCPD) and assisted home HD.

Study design

Cost minimization model.

Setting & population

Adult incident maintenance dialysis patients in Manitoba, Canada.

Intervention

Full- and partial-assist home HD and CCPD. Full-assist modalities were defined as nurse-assisted dialysis setup and takedown performed by a health care aide, whereas partial-assist modalities only included nurse-assisted setup. Additionally, full-assist home HD was evaluated under a complete care scenario with the inclusion of a health care aide remaining with the patient throughout the duration of treatment.

Outcomes

Annual per-patient maintenance and training costs related to assisted and self-care home HD and CCPD, presented in 2019 Canadian dollars.

Model perspective & time frame

This model took the perspective of the Canadian public health payer using a 1-year time frame.

Results

Annual total per-patient maintenance (and training) costs by modality were the following: full-assist CCPD, $75.717 (initial training costs, $301); partial-assist CCPD, $67,765 ($4,385); full-assist home HD, $47,862 ($301); partial-assist home HD, $44,650 ($14,813); and full-assist home HD (complete care), $64,659 ($301).

Limitations

This model did not account for costs taken from the societal perspective or costs related to PD failure and modality switching. Additionally, this analysis reflects only costs experienced by a single center.

Conclusions

Assisted home-based dialysis modalities are viable treatment options for patients from a cost perspective. Future studies to consider graduation rates to full self-care from assisted dialysis and the cost implications of respite care are needed.

SUBMITTER: Bamforth RJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8664694 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveExcess administrative costs in the US health care system are routinely referenced as a justification for comprehensive reform. While there is agreement that these costs are too high, there is little understanding of what generates administrative costs and what policy options might mitigate them.Data sourcesLiterature review and national utilization and expenditure data.Study designWe developed a simulation model of physician billing and insurance-related (BIR) costs to estimate how certain policy reforms would generate savings. Our model is based on structural elements of the payment process in the United States and considers each provider's number of health plan contracts, the number of features in each health plan, the clinical and nonclinical processes required to submit a bill for payment, and the compliance costs associated with medical billing.Data extractionFor several types of visits, we estimated fixed and variable costs of the billing process. We used the model to estimate the BIR costs at a national level under a variety of policy scenarios, including variations of a single payer "Medicare-for-All" model that extends fee-for-service Medicare to the entire population and policy efforts to reduce administrative costs in a multi-payer model. We conducted sensitivity analyses of a wide variety of model parameters.Principal findingsOur model estimates that national BIR costs are reduced between 33% and 53% in Medicare-for-All style single-payer models and between 27% and 63% in various multi-payer models. Under a wide range of assumptions and sensitivity analyses, standardizing contracts generates larger savings with less variance than savings from single-payer strategies.ConclusionAlthough moving toward a single-payer system will reduce BIR costs, certain reforms to payer-provider contracts could generate at least as many administrative cost savings without radically reforming the entire health system. BIR costs can be meaningfully reduced without abandoning a multi-payer system.

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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The United States is the only high-income nation without universal, government-funded or -mandated health insurance employing a unified payment system. The US multi-payer system leaves residents uninsured or underinsured, despite overall healthcare costs far above other nations. Single-payer (often referred to as Medicare for All), a proposed policy solution since 1990, is receiving renewed press attention and popular support. Our review seeks to assess the projected cost impact of a single-payer approach. METHODS AND FINDINGS:We conducted our literature search between June 1 and December 31, 2018, without start date restriction for included studies. We surveyed an expert panel and searched PubMed, Google, Google Scholar, and preexisting lists for formal economic studies of the projected costs of single-payer plans for the US or for individual states. Reviewer pairs extracted data on methods and findings using a template. We quantified changes in total costs standardized to percentage of contemporaneous healthcare spending. Additionally, we quantified cost changes by subtype, such as costs due to increased healthcare utilization and savings due to simplified payment administration, lower drug costs, and other factors. We further examined how modeling assumptions affected results. Our search yielded economic analyses of the cost of 22 single-payer plans over the past 30 years. Exclusions were due to inadequate technical data or assuming a substantial ongoing role for private insurers. We found that 19 (86%) of the analyses predicted net savings (median net result was a savings of 3.46% of total costs) in the first year of program operation and 20 (91%) predicted savings over several years; anticipated growth rates would result in long-term net savings for all plans. The largest source of savings was simplified payment administration (median 8.8%), and the best predictors of net savings were the magnitude of utilization increase, and savings on administration and drug costs (R2 of 0.035, 0.43, and 0.62, respectively). Only drug cost savings remained significant in multivariate analysis. Included studies were heterogeneous in methods, which precluded us from conducting a formal meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS:In this systematic review, we found a high degree of analytic consensus for the fiscal feasibility of a single-payer approach in the US. Actual costs will depend on plan features and implementation. Future research should refine estimates of the effects of coverage expansion on utilization, evaluate provider administrative costs in varied existing single-payer systems, analyze implementation options, and evaluate US-based single-payer programs, as available.