Search

In 2011, Medicare implemented a prospective payment system (PPS) covering an expanded bundle of services that excluded blood transfusions. This led to concern about inappropriate substitution of transfusions for other anemia management methods.Medicare claims were used to calculate transfusion rates among dialysis patients pre- and post-PPS. Linear probability regressions adjusted transfusion trends for patient characteristics.Dialysis patients for whom Medicare was the primary payer between 2008 and 2012.Pre-PPS (2008-2010) versus post-PPS (2011-2012).Monthly and annual probability of receiving one or more blood transfusions.Monthly rates of one or more transfusions varied from 3.8%-4.8% and tended to be lowest in 2010. Annual rates of transfusion events per patient were -10% higher in relative terms post-PPS, but the absolute magnitude of the increase was modest (-0.05 events/patient). A larger proportion received 4 or more transfusions (3.3% in 2011 and 2012 vs 2.7%-2.8% in prior years). Controlling for patient characteristics, the monthly probability of receiving a transfusion was significantly higher post-PPS (β = 0.0034; P0.001), representing an -7% relative increase. Transfusions were more likely for females and patients with more comorbid conditions and less likely for blacks both pre- and post-PPS.Possible underidentification of transfusions in the Medicare claims, particularly in the inpatient setting. Also, we do not observe which patients might be appropriate candidates for kidney transplantation.Transfusion rates increased post-PPS, but these increases were modest in both absolute and relative terms. The largest increase occurred for patients already receiving several transfusions. Although these findings may reduce concerns regarding the impact of Medicare's PPS on inappropriate transfusions that impair access to kidney transplantation or stress blood bank resources, transfusions should continue to be monitored.

Background Medicare implemented a new prospective payment system (PPS) on January 1, 2011. This PPS covers an expanded bundle of services, including services previously paid on a fee-for-service basis. The objectives of the new PPS include more efficient decisions about treatment service combinations and modality choice. Methods Primary data for this study are Medicare claims files for all dialysis patients for whom Medicare is the primary payer. We compare use of key injectable medications under the bundled PPS to use when those drugs were separately billable and examine variability across providers. We also compare each patient's dialysis modality before and after the PPS. Results Use of relatively expensive drugs, including erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, declined substantially after institution of the new PPS, whereas use of iron products, often therapeutic substitutes for erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, increased. Less expensive vitamin D products were substituted for more expensive types. Drug spending overall decreased by ∼$25 per session, or about 5 times the mandated reduction in the base payment rate of ∼$5. Use of peritoneal dialysis increased in 2011 after being nearly flat in the years prior to the PPS, with the increase concentrated in patients in their first or second year of dialysis. Home hemodialysis continued to increase as a percentage of total dialysis services, but at a rate similar to the pre-PPS trend. Conclusion The expanded bundle dialysis PPS provided incentives for the use of lower cost therapies. These incentives seem to have motivated dialysis providers to move toward lower cost methods of care in both their use of drugs and choice of modalities.

Vascular access failure causes substantial morbidity to hemodialysis patients. We sought to identify factors determining survival of the permanent vascular access in use at the start of end-stage renal disease during 1990 in a national sample of 784 incident hemodialysis patients insured by Medicare. Medicare claims records were used to identify access failures or revisions among patients with an arteriovenous (AV) fistula (n = 245) and an AV vascular graft (n = 539). A proportional hazards analysis of time to first failure or revision, controlled by stratification for sex, race, and cause of end-stage renal disease, was used to determine the effect of age, access type, and peripheral vascular disease on vascular access survival. Patients with an AV fistula and who were older than 65 years had a risk of access failure that was 24% lower than similar patients with an AV graft (P < 0.02). The relative risk of access failure for an AV fistula, but not an AV graft, varied significantly with age for patients younger than 65 years (P < 0.01). The relative risk of access failure for a patient with an AV fistula, compared with a patient of the same age with an AV graft, was 67% lower at the age of 40 years, 54% lower at the age of 50 years, and 24% lower at the age of 65 years. A history of peripheral vascular disease was associated with a 24% higher risk of AV graft or fistula failure (P = 0.05). Measures to decrease vascular access-related morbidity among hemodialysis patients should include reversing the current trend toward increasing use of AV grafts, particularly in patients younger than 65 years.