Suchergebnisse

Reimbursement for chronic dialysis consumes a substantial portion of healthcare costs for a relatively small proportion of the total population. Each country has a unique reimbursement system that attempts to control rising costs. Thus, comparing the reimbursement systems between countries might be helpful to find solutions to minimize costs to society without jeopardizing quality of treatment and outcomes. We conducted a survey of seven countries to compare crude reimbursement for various dialysis modalities and evaluated additional factors, such as inclusion of drugs or physician payments in the reimbursement package, adjustment in rates for specific patient subgroups, and pay for performance therapeutic thresholds. The comparison examines the United States, the province of Ontario in Canada, and five European countries (Belgium, France, Germany, The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom). Important differences between countries exist, resulting in as much as a 3.3-fold difference between highest and lowest reimbursement rates for chronic hemodialysis. Differences persist even when our data were adjusted for per capita gross domestic product. Reimbursement for peritoneal dialysis is lower in most countries except Germany and the United States. The United Kingdom is the only country that has implemented an incentive if patients use an arteriovenous fistula. Although home hemodialysis (prolonged or daily dialysis) allows greater flexibility and better patient outcomes, reimbursement is only incentivized in The Netherlands. Unfortunately, it is not yet clear that such differences save money or improve quality of care. Future research should focus on directly testing both outcomes.

PURPOSE: To identify and prioritize potential topics to be addressed in the development of European multidisciplinary guidelines on the management of chronic kidney disease stage 3b-5 in older patients. METHODS: We composed a list of 47 potential guideline topics by reviewing the literature, consulting online 461 nephrologists and 107 geriatricians, and obtaining expert input. A multidisciplinary panel of twelve experts then prioritized the topics during a face-to-face consensus meeting, following a nominal group technique structure with two voting rounds. Topics were rated on a 9-point scale ranging from 1 ('not at all important') to 9 ('critically important'). RESULTS: The highest rating (median; range) was assigned to 'Screening and referral' (8.5; 2.0). Eight topics shared the second highest rating with a median priority score of 8.0 (2.0) and included 'Starting dialysis or not' and 'Accurate assessment of renal function.' 'Targets for and treatment of diabetes' received the lowest rating with (3.0; 6.0). CONCLUSIONS: This joint initiative of the European Renal Association-European Dialysis Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) and the European Union Geriatric Medicine Society (EUGMS) prioritized the development of guidance on interdisciplinary referral of older patients with chronic kidney disease stage 3b-5. Future guidance will therefore focus on identifying prognostic scores to predict death and progression to end-stage renal disease, as well as accurate tests for assessment of renal function in older kidney patients. This will contribute to more informed treatment decision making in this growing patient population.