Skip header and navigation

Refine By

56 records – page 1 of 6.

An operating cost comparison between conventional and home quotidian hemodialysis.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature184747
Source
Am J Kidney Dis. 2003 Jul;42(1 Suppl):49-55
Publication Type
Article
Date
Jul-2003
Author
Andrew Kroeker
William F Clark
A Paul Heidenheim
Louise Kuenzig
Rosemary Leitch
Michael Meyette
Norman Muirhead
Heather Ryan
Randy Welch
Sharon White
Robert M Lindsay
Author Affiliation
Optimal Dialysis Research Unit, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada.
Source
Am J Kidney Dis. 2003 Jul;42(1 Suppl):49-55
Date
Jul-2003
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adult
Aged
Appointments and Schedules
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Costs and Cost Analysis
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Hemodialysis, Home - economics
Humans
Kidney Failure, Chronic - economics - therapy
Male
Middle Aged
Ontario - epidemiology
Prospective Studies
Renal Dialysis - economics
Treatment Outcome
Abstract
Although several studies have shown that simulated annual direct health care costs are substantially lower for patients undergoing more frequent hemodialysis (HD), there is limited information about the economics of daily HD and nocturnal HD.
The London Daily/Nocturnal Hemodialysis Study compared the economics of short daily HD (n = 10), long nocturnal HD (n = 12), and conventional thrice-weekly HD (n = 22) in patients over 18 months. A retrospective analysis of patients' conventional HD costs during the 12 months before study entry was conducted to measure the change in cost after switching to quotidian HD.
As the data show, annual costs (in Canadian dollars) for daily HD are substantially lower than for both nocturnal HD and conventional HD: approximately 67,300 Can dollars, 74,400 Can dollars, and 72,700 Can dollars per patient, respectively. Moreover, marginal changes in operating cost per patient year were - 9,800 Can dollars, -17,400 Can dollars, and +3,100 Can dollars for the daily HD, nocturnal HD, and conventional HD groups. Because of the increase in number of treatments, treatment supply costs per patient for the daily HD and nocturnal HD study groups were approximately twice those for conventional HD patients. However, average costs for consults, hospitalization days, emergency room visits, and laboratory tests for quotidian HD patients tended to decline after study entry. The major cost saving in home quotidian HD derived from the reduction in direct nursing time, excluding patient training. Total annualized cost per quality-adjusted life-year for the daily HD and nocturnal HD groups were 85,442 Can dollars and 120,903 Can dollars, which represented a marginal change of - 15,090 Can dollars and - 21,651 Can dollars, respectively, reflecting both improved quality of life and reduced costs for quotidian HD patients.
Substantial clinical benefits of home quotidian HD, combined with the economic advantage shown by this study, clearly justify its expansion.
PubMed ID
12830444 View in PubMed
Less detail

Are North American nephrologists biased against peritoneal dialysis?

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature193031
Source
Perit Dial Int. 2001 Jul-Aug;21(4):335-7
Publication Type
Article
Author
A F Charest
D C Mendelssohn
Source
Perit Dial Int. 2001 Jul-Aug;21(4):335-7
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Attitude of Health Personnel
Canada
Data Collection
Health Care Costs
Humans
Nephrology
Patient Selection
Peritoneal Dialysis - economics - utilization
Renal Dialysis - economics - utilization
United States
Abstract
To examine possible bias against peritoneal dialysis (PD) by nephrologists less familiar with it.
Secondary analysis of a previously reported survey.
All practicing Canadian nephrologists (n = 290, response rate 66.2%) and a subgroup of American nephrologists who were members of the National Kidney Foundation Council on Dialysis (n = 507, response rate 47.3%). Responses were then subdivided by type of dialysis practice: mainly or only hemodialysis (HD, n = 117), mainly or only PD (n = 16), or both HD and PD (n = 232).
Self-administered mailed questionnaire.
Opinions and attitudes of nephrologists concerning patient characteristics favoring one dialysis modality over the other, as well as the relative utilization of HD and PD currently and in a hypothetical ideal situation.
The main differences were present between physicians practicing mainly HD and physicians practicing mainly PD, with those practicing both giving answers usually intermediate to the others. The maximum weight suitable for PD was 10 kg less according to HD-oriented nephrologists compared with PD-oriented nephrologists (97.8 kg vs 108.5 kg). All nephrologists agreed that, ideally, 40% of prevalent end-stage renal disease patients should be on PD to optimize cost-effectiveness, whereas the proportion should be between 32% and 45% when one optimizes survival, wellness, and quality of life. In general, differences between groups were small.
Most nephrologists favored a proportion of PD higher than the current prevalence seen in either Canada or the U.S.A. If physicians' biases are contributing to the distribution of dialysis modalities, they are not likely to be major factors. Unknown but important factors, external to the physician, may shape modality distribution more than the opinions and attitudes of physicians. If a more balanced and cost-effective dialysis delivery system is desired, more understanding and manipulation of these non physician-related factors will be required.
PubMed ID
11587394 View in PubMed
Less detail

Attitudes of Canadian nephrologists toward dialysis modality selection.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature201252
Source
Perit Dial Int. 1999 May-Jun;19(3):263-8
Publication Type
Article
Author
B. Jung
P G Blake
R L Mehta
D C Mendelssohn
Author Affiliation
Division of Nephrology, University of Toronto, Canada.
Source
Perit Dial Int. 1999 May-Jun;19(3):263-8
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Attitude of Health Personnel
Canada
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Data Collection
Decision Making
Humans
Kidney Failure, Chronic - therapy
Nephrology
Patient Selection
Peritoneal Dialysis - economics - utilization
Peritoneal Dialysis, Continuous Ambulatory - economics - utilization
Renal Dialysis - economics - utilization
Abstract
To determine the opinions and attitudes of Canadian nephrologists about dialysis modality decisions and optimal dialysis system design.
Members of the Canadian Society of Nephrology.
A mailed survey questionnaire.
A 66% response rate was obtained. Decisions about modality are reported to be based most strongly on patient preference (4.4 on a scale from 1 to 5), followed by quality of life (4.06), morbidity (3.97), mortality (3.85), and rehabilitation (3.69), while neither facility (1.78) nor physician (1.62) reimbursement are important. When asked about the current relative utilization of each modality, nephrologists felt that hospital-based hemodialysis (HD) is slightly overutilized (2.53), continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) is about right (3.00), while cycler peritoneal dialysis (PD) (3.53), community-based full (3.83) and self-care HD (3.91), and home HD (4.02) are underutilized. A hypothetical question about optimal distribution to maximize survival revealed that a type of HD should constitute 62.8% of the mix, with more emphasis on cycler PD (14.9%), community-based full care HD (13.8%), self-care HD (14.5%), and home HD (9.0%) than is current practice. However, when the goal was to maximize cost effectiveness, HD fell slightly to 57.8%.
These survey results suggest that the current national average 66%/34% HD/PD ratio is reasonable. However, there appears to be a consensus that Canada could evolve to a more cost-effective, community-based dialysis system without compromising patient outcomes.
PubMed ID
10433164 View in PubMed
Less detail

Can Quebec afford dialysis for every 80-year-old patient?

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature199520
Source
CMAJ. 2000 Jan 25;162(2):243
Publication Type
Article
Date
Jan-25-2000

A comparison of quality of life and travel-related factors between in-center and satellite-based hemodialysis patients.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature146618
Source
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010 Feb;5(2):268-74
Publication Type
Article
Date
Feb-2010
Author
Michael J Diamant
Lori Harwood
Sujana Movva
Barbara Wilson
Larry Stitt
Robert M Lindsay
Louise M Moist
Author Affiliation
Division of Nephrology, London Health Sciences Centre, Ontario, Canada.
Source
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010 Feb;5(2):268-74
Date
Feb-2010
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Aged
Chi-Square Distribution
Community Health Centers - economics
Cross-Sectional Studies
Female
Health Care Surveys
Health Services Accessibility - economics
Humans
Kidney Failure, Chronic - economics - psychology - therapy
Linear Models
Male
Middle Aged
Ontario
Outpatient Clinics, Hospital - economics
Quality of Life
Questionnaires
Renal Dialysis - economics - psychology
Residence Characteristics
Time Factors
Transportation of Patients - economics
Treatment Outcome
Abstract
Shorter travel times and distance to dialysis clinics have been associated with improved patient outcomes and a higher health-related quality of life (HRQOL). The objective of this study was to compare HRQOL between prevalent in-center and satellite dialysis patients, as well as compare travel-related factors that contribute to HRQOL between in-center and satellite-based patients. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASURES: The London Health Sciences Centre is a tertiary care center with in-center and regional satellite hemodialysis units. Patients who consented and completed a questionnaire (n = 202) were enrolled into a cross-sectional, cohort observational study. Patients were administered the Medical Outcomes Short-Form 36 (SF-36) and the Kidney Disease Health Related Quality of Life (KDHRQOL) tool and were asked questions relating to travel to dialysis clinics.
Patients who underwent dialysis in the satellites had similar demographics, comorbidities, and laboratory parameters. Patients who underwent dialysis in satellite units reported a significantly superior score on the dialysis stress domain of the KDHRQOL questionnaire. There was no significant difference between in-center and satellite patients on the basis of the SF-36. Satellite patients also reported a significantly decreased cost of transportation, a significantly increased proportion who drive themselves to clinics, and significantly decreased travel time.
Patients who underwent dialysis in satellite units demonstrated similar characteristics, comorbidities, surrogate outcomes, and most aspects of HRQOL. Travel time, cost, and receiving treatment in one's own community are important factors that may contribute to a trend toward higher reported HRQOL by patients in satellite dialysis units.
Notes
Cites: Am J Kidney Dis. 2000 Feb;35(2):293-30010676729
Cites: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009 Mar;4(3):603-819261829
Cites: Qual Life Res. 2000 Mar;9(2):195-20510983483
Cites: N Engl J Med. 2002 Dec 19;347(25):2010-912490682
Cites: Kidney Int. 2003 Nov;64(5):1903-1014531826
Cites: N Engl J Med. 1985 Feb 28;312(9):553-93918267
Cites: Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):473-831593914
Cites: Med Care. 1994 Jan;32(1):40-668277801
Cites: N Engl J Med. 1996 Mar 28;334(13):835-408596551
Cites: Am J Kidney Dis. 1996 Jun;27(6):844-78651249
Cites: Am J Kidney Dis. 1997 Apr;29(4):584-929100049
Cites: Am J Kidney Dis. 1997 Jul;30(1):140-559214415
Cites: Pharmacoeconomics. 1999 Feb;15(2):141-5510351188
Cites: Blood Purif. 2004;22(6):490-815523175
Cites: Health Technol Assess. 2005 Jul;9(24):1-17815985188
Cites: Curr Med Res Opin. 2005 Nov;21(11):1777-8316307698
Cites: Semin Nephrol. 2006 Jan;26(1):68-7916412831
Cites: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006 Sep;1(5):952-917699312
Cites: CMAJ. 2007 Oct 23;177(9):1039-4417954893
Cites: Am J Kidney Dis. 2008 Apr;51(4):641-5018371540
Cites: CMAJ. 2000 Aug 8;163(3):265-7110951722
PubMed ID
20019123 View in PubMed
Less detail

Cost analysis of alternative treatments in end-stage renal disease.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature224442
Source
Transplant Proc. 1992 Feb;24(1):335
Publication Type
Article
Date
Feb-1992
Author
I. Karlberg
Author Affiliation
Transplant Unit Sahlgrenska Hospital, University of Göteborg, Sweden.
Source
Transplant Proc. 1992 Feb;24(1):335
Date
Feb-1992
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Costs and Cost Analysis
Humans
Kidney Failure, Chronic - economics - surgery - therapy
Kidney Transplantation - economics
Peritoneal Dialysis, Continuous Ambulatory - economics
Renal Dialysis - economics
Sweden
PubMed ID
1539301 View in PubMed
Less detail

Cost analysis of renal replacement therapies in Finland.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature182561
Source
Am J Kidney Dis. 2003 Dec;42(6):1228-38
Publication Type
Article
Date
Dec-2003
Author
Tapani Salonen
Tuomo Reina
Heikki Oksa
Harri Sintonen
Amos Pasternack
Author Affiliation
Medical School, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland. tapani.salonen@uta.fi
Source
Am J Kidney Dis. 2003 Dec;42(6):1228-38
Date
Dec-2003
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adult
Aged
Cadaver
Comorbidity
Costs and Cost Analysis
Drug Costs
Female
Finland
Health Care Costs
Health Resources - economics - utilization
Health Services - economics - utilization
Hospital Costs
Humans
Kidney Failure, Chronic - economics - mortality - therapy
Kidney Transplantation - economics - statistics & numerical data
Life tables
Male
Middle Aged
Peritoneal Dialysis, Continuous Ambulatory - economics - statistics & numerical data
Renal Dialysis - economics - statistics & numerical data
Renal Replacement Therapy - economics - statistics & numerical data
Retrospective Studies
Survival Analysis
Transportation of Patients - economics
Abstract
Costs for treating patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) have grown noticeably. However, most of the cost estimates to date have taken the perspective of the payers. Hence, direct costs of treating ESRD are not accurately known.
Files of all adult patients with ESRD who entered dialysis therapy between January 1, 1991, and December 31, 1996, were studied retrospectively, and all use of health care resources and services was recorded. Follow-up continued until December 31, 1996.
Two hundred fourteen patients fulfilled the study criteria, 138 patients started with in-center hemodialysis (HD) therapy, and 76 patients started with continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) therapy. Patients were followed up until death (72 patients) or treatment modality changed for more than 1 month. Fifty-five patients received a cadaveric transplant, and after transplantation (TX), they were examined as a separate group of TX patients. Direct health care costs for the first 6 months in the HD, CAPD, and TX groups were 32,566 US dollars, 25,504 dollars, and 38,265 dollars, and for the next 6 months, 26,272 dollars, 24,218 dollars, and 7,420 dollars, respectively. During subsequent years, annual costs were 54,140 US dollars and 54,490 dollars in the HD group, 45,262 dollars and 49,299 dollars in the CAPD group, and 11,446 dollars and 9,989 dollars in the TX group. Regression analyses showed 4 variables significantly associated with greater daily costs in dialysis patients: age, ischemic heart disease, nonprimary renal disease, and HD treatment.
Compared with HD, CAPD may be associated with lower costs, yet the absolute difference is not striking. After the TX procedure is performed once, annual costs decline remarkably, and cadaveric TX is less costly than both dialysis modalities.
PubMed ID
14655195 View in PubMed
Less detail

[Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment for end-stage renal disease].

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature146838
Source
Laeknabladid. 2009 Nov;95(11):747-53
Publication Type
Article
Date
Nov-2009
Author
Tinna Laufey Asgeirsdóttir
Gyda Asmundsdóttir
María Heimisdóttir
Eiríkur Jónsson
Runólfur Pálsson
Author Affiliation
Lanspítala Eiríksgötu 5, 105 Reykjavík, Iceland.
Source
Laeknabladid. 2009 Nov;95(11):747-53
Date
Nov-2009
Language
Icelandic
Geographic Location
Denmark
Iceland
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Denmark - epidemiology
Health Care Costs
Humans
Iceland - epidemiology
Kidney Failure, Chronic - economics - mortality - therapy
Kidney Transplantation - economics
Living Donors
Models, Economic
Outcome and Process Assessment (Health Care) - economics
Quality of Life
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Renal Dialysis - economics
Treatment Outcome
Abstract
End-stage renal disease (ESRD) requires costly life-sustaining therapy, either dialysis or kidney transplantation. The purpose of this study was to analyse and compare the cost-effectiveness of kidney transplantation and dialysis in Iceland.
Costs and effectiveness were assessed using the clinical records of the Division of Nephrology patient registration and billing systems and at Landspitali University Hospital, information from the Icelandic Health Insurance on payments for kidney transplantation at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, and published studies on survival and quality of life among patients with ESRD. All costs are presented at the 2006 price level and discounting was done according to the lowest interest rate of the Icelandic Housing Finance Fund in that year.
The cost associated with live donor kidney transplantation was greater in Denmark than at LUH, ISK 6.758.101 and ISK 5.442.763, respectively. The cost per quality-adjusted life year gained by live donor kidney transplantation was approximately ISK 2.5 million compared to ISK 10.7 million for dialysis.
The cost of live donor kidney transplantation is within the range generally considered acceptable for life-sustaining therapies. The transplant surgery is less expensive in Iceland than in Denmark. Increasing the number of kidney transplants is cost-effective in light of the lower cost per life-year gained by kidney transplantation compared to dialysis.
Notes
Comment In: Laeknabladid. 2009 Nov;95(11):74319996461
PubMed ID
19996463 View in PubMed
Less detail

Cost-effectiveness studies of renal transplantation.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature73109
Source
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1995;11(3):611-22
Publication Type
Article
Date
1995
Author
I. Karlberg
G. Nyberg
Author Affiliation
University of Göteborg, Sweden.
Source
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1995;11(3):611-22
Date
1995
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adult
Comparative Study
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Female
Humans
Kidney Failure, Chronic - economics - epidemiology - therapy
Kidney Transplantation - economics - utilization
Male
Middle Aged
Questionnaires
Renal Dialysis - economics - methods - utilization
Sweden - epidemiology
Technology Assessment, Biomedical - economics
Treatment Outcome
Abstract
This study analyzes opportunity costs for the treatment of end-stage renal disease. Kidney transplantation remains the most cost-effective treatment for uremia and is one of the most cost-effective technologies in health care. Improved survival of grafts and increased numbers of transplants have the potential to reduce costs for dialysis programs. To support organ donation activities, the public and concerned health professionals should be informed about the opportunity cost of "unnecessary" dialysis. These resources could be reallocated from dialysis to other programs. Among patients in dialysis, a more common use of chronic ambulatory peritoneal dialysis instead of institution-based hemodialysis would greatly increase cost-utility and further reduce the program costs of renal replacement therapy.
PubMed ID
7591556 View in PubMed
Less detail

56 records – page 1 of 6.