National Academies Press: OpenBook

Kidney Failure and the Federal Government (1991)

Chapter: Structure of the Provider Community

« Previous: The ESRD Patient Population: Special Groups
Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×

6
Structure of the Provider Community

Providers1 of outpatient dialysis treatment now represent the vast majority of the renal treatment provider community, and thus they are the primary focus of this chapter. Transplant centers, organ procurement agencies, and pediatric facilities are also discussed in order to provide information about the complete spectrum of renal treatment providers.

Structural change in the provider community is analyzed in terms of:

  • overall growth in treatment capacity, especially in relation to the increase in patient population;

  • growth of hospital-based versus independent facilities;

  • growth of for-profit versus not-for-profit facilities; and

  • growth of large versus small facilities.

The policy implications of these structural changes for access, patient choice, and quality of care are then briefly discussed with the committee's statements and recommendations.

The analyses in this chapter are based mainly on the data from HCFA's annual facility survey. All dialysis and transplant units are required to respond to the survey, and the information collected ranges from provider characteristics, such as size and ownership, to volume and type of treatments provided. Medicare as well as non-Medicare patients are included in the statistics, so the data may not agree completely with other HCFA data bases, which generally contain only Medicare beneficiary data.

Information about providers is generally well defined. HCFA distinguishes the following types of facilities by ownership: individual for-profit; partnership for-profit; corporation not-for-profit, individual not-for-profit; partnership not-for-profit; corporation not-for-profit; state government; county government; municipal government; Veterans Administration; and other federal

Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×

government. This analysis groups all facilities into two categories—for-profit and not-for-profit. Current information on the chain ownership of dialysis units is limited. Although such information was included in the annual facility survey report before 1986, it was omitted thereafter.2 HFCA facility ownership data do not indicate chain affiliation.

OVERVIEW

During the 1980s, major changes occurred in the structure of the renal treatment provider community:

  • From 1980 to 1988, the total U.S. dialysis patient population increased from 52,364 to 105,958, an average annual growth of 9.2 percent.

  • The total number of Medicare-certified renal dialysis treatment providers grew from 1,004 in 1980 to 1,740 in 1988, with independent facilities contributing to over 90 percent of this growth.

  • In 1988, approximately 62 percent of all renal dialysis facilities were independent units, compared to about 40 percent in 1980. These units were generally larger than hospital-based units. By 1988, they accounted for almost 70 percent of the total number of dialysis stations,3 up from 50 percent in 1980.

  • The number of for-profit renal dialysis facilities almost tripled from 342 in 1980 to 912 in 1988, an average annual growth rate of 13 percent; not-for-profit facilities grew at a rate of only 2.8 percent annually over the same period.

  • Growth rates were slightly higher for larger dialysis facilities. From 1980 to 1988, small facilities (1 to 9 stations) decreased from 44 percent to 38 percent of all facilities, medium-size units (10 to 20 stations) increased from less than 41 percent to more than 47 percent, and large units (20+ stations) increased from 12 percent to 14 percent.

  • In 1980, the largest group of dialysis providers consisted of small, not for-profit, hospital-based units. By 1988, medium-size, for-profit, independent facilities made up the largest group.

  • The number of renal transplant centers grew from 151 units in 1980 to 219 units in 1989; the number of kidney transplants grew from 4,697 in 1980 to 8,976 in 1986 and since then has leveled off at around 9,000. Patients on transplant waiting lists, however, increased steadily from 5,072 in 1980 to 14,669 in 1989.

  • Since 1987, following the National Organ Transplant Act of 1986, multiple organ procurement organizations (OPOs) in a single statistical metropolitan area (SMA) have been consolidated. As a result, there were only 70 OPOs [20 of which were hospital-based (HOPOs) and 50 of which were independent (IOPOs)] in 1990 compared to 115 in 1986.

Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×
  • In addition to these documented changes, rural dialysis facilities have received some attention in recent years. The definition of rural units, however, is not well developed, and historical data do not exist for these units. In general, it appears that rural dialysis facilities are smaller, have fewer patients, and thus are less able to realize the efficiencies generated by volume.

  • Currently, 18 facilities are dedicated solely to pediatric ESRD patients. All are hospital-based units located in children's hospitals, and they tend to be smaller than other facilities. The total number of pediatric facilities has not increased over the years in spite of an increasing number of pediatric ESRD patients.

Outpatient Dialysis Facilities

Since the ESRD program began in 1973, the total number of Medicare-certified renal treatment providers has grown from 606 to 1,819 in 1988, primarily in dialysis facilities. From 1980 to 1988, such facilities grew from 1,004 units to 1,740, an average annual growth rate of 7.1 percent (Table 6-1).

The number of approved dialysis stations also has increased steadily since 1976. In 1976, there were 7,093 stations; this number increased to 12,216 in 1980 and to 22,803 by 1988. From 1980 to 1988, the average annual growth rate in stations was approximately 8 percent (Table 6-1). During this same period, the total U.S. dialysis population increased from

TABLE 6-1 Growth of Outpatient Dialysis Providers, 1980–88

Year

No. of Units

No. of Stations

No. of Patients

No. of Treatmentsa

1980

1,004

12,216

52,364

5,672,277

1981

1,124

13,510

58,924

6,443,624

1982

1,155

14,270

65,765

7,072,072

1983

1,217

15,216

71,987

7,675,641

1984

1,307

17,138

78,483

8,463,376

1985

1,392

18,226

84,797

9,246,027

1986

1,507

19,799

90,886

10,137,701

1987

1,618

21,380

98,432

10,798,202

1988

1,740

22,803

105,958

11,866,112

Average annual growth (%)

7.1

8.1

9.2

9.7

a Outpatient hemodialysis (including training) treatments only.

SOURCE: HCFA, 1980–88.

Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×

TABLE 6-2 Definitions of Dialysis Unit Size, Demand, Capacity, and Utilization

Dialysis facility size = number of stations:

 

Small, 1–9

 

Medium, 10–20

 

Large, 20+

Demand:

 

 

Unit demand = Actual hemodialysis treatments per year

 

System demand = Actual treatments per year (all units)

Capacity:

 

 

Station capacity = (2 treatments per day) × (6 days per week) × (52 weeks per year) = 624 treatments per year

 

Unit capacity = (624 treatments per year) × (number of stations in the unit)

 

System capacity = (624 treatments per year) × (total number of stations in the provider community)

Utilization:

 

 

Actual treatments per year per unit capacity

52,364 to 105,958, an average annual growth rate of 9.2 percent,4 and the number of outpatient hemodialysis treatments grew correspondingly at 9.7 percent annually (Table 6-1). Thus, total capacity of all renal treatment providers, measured by the aggregate number of hemodialysis stations, grew somewhat slower than the patient population and the number of dialysis treatments provided between 1980 and 1988.

The optimal level of facility utilization has never been clearly defined, and justifiable geographic variations may exist. If the number of dialysis stations is used as the measure of capacity, unit capacity can then be defined as the number of stations in a dialysis facility that operate two patient treatment shifts a day for 6 days a week.5 This is equivalent to 624 treatments per station per year when a facility is running at full capacity (Table 6-2). If utilization or demand is measured in terms of hemodialysis treatments administered per station, then the treatment/station ratio can serve as a proxy indication of utilization rate; i.e., when the facility's average treatment/station ratio is 624 treatments per station per year, it can be regarded as operating at full capacity. These measures, though imperfect, are commonly used by the renal treatment community (REN Corporation, 1989; Community Psychiatric Centers, 1989).

In the past decade, the more rapid increase in patient treatments compared to treatment capacity has resulted in a higher use of treatment at the program level. The number of hemodialysis treatments per station per year increased 12 percent, from 464 in 1980 to 520 treatments per station per year in 1988.6 On the other hand, there are substantial variations among

Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×

states in the utilization rate of dialysis facilities. These variations may be due partly to state certificate-of-need or other regulatory constraints on capacity (see Chapter 7).

Kidney Transplant Centers

There were 167 renal transplant centers when the Medicare ESRD program was established in 1973. Each year the number decreased slightly until the early 1980s when the trend reversed, and the number of renal transplant centers grew at 4.2 percent annually from 151 in 1980 to 219 in 1989.

On the basis of 1988 facility survey data, 55 percent of transplant centers perform 11 to 49 procedures annually. Fewer than 10 percent perform more than 100 procedures during any given year, but the largest centers perform more than 200 procedures per year. About 15 percent of the centers perform fewer than 10 procedures per year. The median transplant center size, as measured by the number of procedures performed, increased from 24 procedures in 1980 to 32 procedures in 1988.

An effective transplantation program depends on the donation of organs and a system to procure and distribute the donated organs. The first programs to increase the procurement and distribution of cadaver kidneys began in 1968 in Boston and Los Angeles; several other centers were established in 1969. The Medicare ESRD program made federal funds available for kidney procurement and distribution through the reimbursement system, beginning in 1973. In 1986, about 115 OPOs were operating across the country (Task Force on Organ Transplantation, 1986). Although these agencies were initially established to procure kidneys, they now also procure and distribute other organs, including hearts and livers.

Two types of organizations procure organs: IOPOs and HOPOs. In 1986, nearly one-half of the 115 organ procurement agencies were IOPOs—private, not-for-profit organizations created solely for the purpose of procuring organs. IOPOs usually supply organs to several transplant centers and serve more than half of the nation's hospitals. A HOPO is affiliated with a single transplant center at a given hospital and obtains organs primarily for that center. All organs procured, whether obtained by IOPOs or HOPOs, are offered first to local transplant centers, then regionally and nationally if no local recipients are identified.7

IOPOs generally obtain more organs and serve more hospitals than do HOPOs. However, the size and effectiveness of OPOs varies widely (Prottas, 1985). Some OPOs procure less than 10 organs a year; others obtain more than 300 organs a year. Since 1987, following the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, multiple OPOs in a single SMA have been consolidated. As a result, there were only 70 OPOs (20 HOPOs and 50 IOPOs) in 1990, compared to 115 in 1986.

Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×

Pretransplant laboratory costs account for about 20 percent of all Medi-care expenditures for kidney acquisition and must not be overlooked. Questions regarding the practices of tissue typing laboratories have been raised in recent years. A report from the DHHS Office of Inspector General (OIG, 1987) indicates that, in some areas of the country, there is widespread variation in pretransplant testing procedures, including duplication of testing. In many areas, renal transplant centers have agreed to use a single laboratory for all pretransplant testings. In other areas, however, individual renal transplant centers continue to operate their own laboratories.

Pediatric Facilities

Children with ESRD have special needs. Only a small number of renal treatment providers dedicate themselves exclusively to children. Currently, there are 18 Medicare-approved pediatric ESRD facilities, most of which were developed after 1973. All are connected with children's hospitals, and most also have pediatric transplantation units.8

Compared to the adult renal treatment facilities, pediatric units tend to be smaller. HCFA's 1987 facility survey, for example, shows that the median pediatric facility has only 4 dialysis stations and the largest pediatric unit has 10 stations. The number of patients in each facility ranged from 2 to 53, with an average of 16 patients. In 1987, only 289 patients—fewer than 10 percent of the total pediatric ESRD population—were being treated in these 18 pediatric units. The remaining children with ESRD receive their treatments from facilities that predominantly treat adults.

There is general agreement that the treatment of choice for children with ESRD is transplantation. However, although patients who receive their care from pediatric facilities have more direct access to pediatric transplant units, they have a lower rate of transplantation than the general pediatric ESRD patients. On the basis of a survey conducted by the National Association of Children's Hospitals and Related Institutions (1987), only 46 percent of pediatric ESRD patients treated in the children's hospitals had been transplanted, compared to nearly 65 percent of pediatric patients who are treated elsewhere. The reasons for this difference are not clear. Patients treated in pediatric facilities are generally younger than other pediatric ESRD patients, and this may be one reason for the lower transplantation rate. Second, the proportion of black children treated in pediatric facilities is higher than in the adult facilities, and black patients receive transplants at lower rates than do whites.

The number of pediatric ESRD patients is increasing (see Chapter 5), but the number of renal pediatric facilities is not. Hence, access to appropriate care for these children is becoming more difficult (see Chapter 7). Most pediatric ESRD patients are treated in adult-oriented renal treatment facili-

Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×

ties that treat limited numbers of children. Thus, access to specialized care provided by pediatric nephrologists is needed for these patients.

CHANGING STRUCTURE OF THE OUTPATIENT DIALYSIS COMMUNITY

HCFA defines dialysis facilities as units (hospital-based or independent) approved to furnish outpatient maintenance dialysis services to ESRD patients. Outpatient dialysis providers can be categorized along three dimensions: hospital-based or independent; for-profit or not-for-profit; and size as measured by number of stations.

Hospital-Based Versus Independent Providers9
Hospital-Based Providers

The growth of hospital-based outpatient dialysis facilities can be examined in terms of increases in the numbers of facilities, dialysis stations, and patients, and their "market share" relative to that of independent facilities.

Outpatient Dialysis Facilities The number of hospital-based dialysis facilities increased slightly from 600 in 1980 to 661 in 1988, a growth rate of 1.2 percent annually. By 1988, only 38 percent of dialysis facilities were hospital-based, a significant decrease from almost 60 percent in 1980 (Table 6-3). Over 97 percent of hospital dialysis facilities are not-for-profit, and this has not changed between 1980 and 1988.

Dialysis Stations The total number of stations in hospital-based facilities has not grown rapidly. There were 6,105 dialysis stations in hospital-based facilities in 1980, increasing to 7,285 in 1988, an average annual growth rate of 2.2 percent (Table 6-3). These hospital-based stations accounted for half of the total number of dialysis stations in 1980, but only one-third in 1988. The average-size hospital-based dialysis unit grew slightly from just under 10 stations in 1980 to 10.3 stations in 1988.

Patients

In 1980, 26,537 patients received their outpatient dialysis treatments in hospital-based facilities. This number increased to 38,657 by 1988 for an average annual growth of 4.8 percent. The ESRD "patient share" of hospital-based facilities, however, declined dramatically from over 50 percent in 1980 to less than 37 percent in 1988 (Table 6-3).

Although hospital-based facilities grew slowly in treatment capacity, their number of patients grew faster and, consequently, the average utilization rate increased. The median (50th percentile) hospital-based dialysis facility had 31 patients in 1988 compared to 17 patients in 1980. An analysis

Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×

TABLE 6-3 Outpatient Dialysis Providers, Independent Versus Hospital-Based, 1980–88

 

Independent

Hospital-Based

Year

No. of Units

No. of Stations

No. of Patients

No. of Units

No. of Stations

No. of Patients

1980

404

6,111

25,827

600

6,105

26,537

1981

296

7,082

30,112

628

6,428

28,812

1982

522

7,701

34,215

633

6,569

31,550

1983

610

8,837

40,163

607

6,379

31,824

1984

686

10,509

45,082

621

6,629

33,401

1985

763

11,486

49,817

629

6,740

34,980

1986

869

12,835

54,902

638

6,964

35,984

1987

961

14,089

60,815

657

7,291

37,617

1988

1,079

15,518

67,301

661

7,285

38,657

Average annual growth (%)

13.1

12.4

12.7

1.2

2.2

4.8

Total share (%):

 

 

 

 

 

 

1980

40.2

50.0

49.3

59.8

50.0

50.7

1988

62.0

68.1

63.5

38.0

32.0

36.5

 

SOURCE: HCFA, 1980–88.

based on USRDS data shows that about 18 percent of the hospital-based facilities had more than 100 patients in 1988, compared to only 8.5 percent in 1980 (USRDS, 1989).

Independent Providers

The growth of independent outpatient dialysis facilities can be examined in a manner similar to that used for hospital-based providers.

Outpatient Dialysis Facilities

The number of independent outpatient dialysis facilities grew much more rapidly than the number of hospital-based units (Figure 6-1), increasing from 404 units in 1980 to 1,079 units in 1988, an average annual growth rate of 13.1 percent (Table 6-3). By the end of 1988, about 62 percent of all dialysis facilities were independent, compared to approximately 40 percent in 1980. During this time, the independent facilities accounted for 92 percent of the increase in all outpatient dialysis facilities. Unlike their hospital-based counterparts, independent dialysis facilities are predominantly for-profit. From 1980 to 1988, for-profit facilities accounted for over 80 percent of the total independent facilities, and for 84 percent of the 675 new independent units established during this period.

Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×

FIGURE 6-1

Outpatient Dialysis Units, 1980–88: Independent Versus Hospital-Based

SOURCE: HCFA, 1980–88.

Dialysis Stations The total number of stations in independent facilities also grew significantly from 6,111 dialysis stations in 1980 to 15,518 stations in 1988, at an average annual growth rate of 12.4 percent (Table 6-3 and Figure 6-2). By 1988, dialysis stations in independent facilities accounted for over 68 percent of all dialysis stations, up by 50 percent from 1980.

Patients Independent facilities provided maintenance dialysis to 25,827 patients in 1980. This increased to 67,301 patients by 1988, an average annual increase of 12.7 percent. The proportion of patients in independent facilities increased from just under 50 percent in 1980 to over 63 percent in 1988 (Table 6-3).

The number of patients treated by the median independent for-profit dialysis facility was 48 patients in 1988 compared to 49 patients in 1980 (USRDS, 1989). The median independent not-for-profit dialysis facility had 56 patients in 1988, down from 65 patients in 1980. By contrast, the median hospital-based unit increased from 17 patients in 1980 to 31 patients in 1988.

Utilization of dialysis stations is lower in independent units compared to hospital-based units. Independent facilities accounted for over 68 percent of total national dialysis stations but treated slightly less than 64 percent of the patients in 1988. The average size of an independent facility decreased slightly from 14.6 stations in 1980 to 14.1 stations in 1988, whereas the

Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×

FIGURE 6-2

Outpatient Hemodialysis Stations, 1980–88: Independent Versus Hospital-Based Units

SOURCE: HCFA, 1980–88.

number of facilities grew significantly. Since the growth in the number of independent facilities and stations was comparable to the increase in demand for patient treatments from 1980 to 1988, on a national level the independent facilities experienced no significant utilization rate increase.10

Not-For-Profit Versus For-Profit Providers11

In 1988, about 52 percent of all outpatient dialysis facilities were proprietary (Table 6-4), a substantial increase from 34 percent in 1980. Since there are only 18 hospital-based for-profit facilities, almost all growth of the proprietary sector was accounted for by independent facilities (Table 6-5). Not-for-profit renal treatment facilities are mainly hospital-based, although the number of independent not-for-profit facilities increased during the 1980s.

Not-For-Profit Providers

Examination of not-for-profit outpatient dialysis facilities in terms of the increases of numbers of facilities, dialysis stations, and patients shows that their market share relative to that of for-profit facilities has declined over the past decade.

Outpatient Dialysis Facilities Not-for-profit renal treatment facilities grew relatively slowly during the 1980s from 662 units in 1980 to 828 units in

Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×

TABLE 6-4 Outpatient Dialysis Providers, For-Profit Versus Not-For-Profit, 1980–88

 

For-Profit

Not-For-Profit

Year

No. of Units

No. of Stations

No. of Patients

No. of Units

No. of Stations

No. of Patients

1980

342

4,986

20,317

662

7,230

32,047

1981

413

5,758

23,835

711

7,752

35,089

1982

429

6,221

26,940

726

8,049

38,825

1983

495

7,028

30,911

722

8,188

41,076

1984

554

8,376

34,675

753

8,762

43,808

1985

622

9,187

38,458

770

9,039

46,339

1986

722

10,507

43,361

785

9,292

47,525

1987

803

11,718

48,846

815

9,662

49,586

1988

912

13,077

54,528

828

9,726

51,430

Average annual growth (%)

13.0

12.8

13.1

2.8

3.8

6.1

Total share (%):

 

 

 

 

 

 

1980

34.1

40.8

38.8

65.9

59.2

61.2

1988

52.4

57.4

51.5

47.6

42.7

48.5

 

SOURCE: HCFA, 1980–88.

1988, for an average annual growth rate of 2.8 percent. By 1988, not-for-profit facilities represented less than half of all dialysis facilities, a significant decrease from nearly two-thirds in 1980 (Table 6-4).

Although hospital-based facilities still made up about 78 percent of the not-for-profit sector in 1988, that was down from 88 percent in 1980. Independent not-for-profit facilities grew at a faster pace, from 79 units in 1980 to 185 units in 1988, an average annual growth rate of 11.2 percent (Table 6-5).

Dialysis Stations The total number of stations in not-for-profit facilities grew slowly from 7,230 in 1980 to 9,726 in 1988, an average annual growth rate of 3.8 percent. The not-for-profit facilities accounted for almost 60 percent of total stations in 1980, but declined to less than 43 percent in 1988 (Table 6-4). Hospital-based facilities provided about 74 percent of the stations in the not-for-profit sector in 1988, down from 83 percent in 1980.

Patients Outpatient treatments in not-for-profit facilities were provided to 32,047 patients in 1980, which increased an average of 6 percent annually to 51,430 patients in 1988. However, the proportion of patients under

Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×

TABLE 6-5 Outpatient Dialysis Providers, by Profit Status and Type of Facility, 1980–88

 

For-Profit

Not-For-Profit

 

Independent

Hospital-Based

Independent

Hospital-Based

Year

No. of Units

No. of Stations

No. of Patients

No. of Units

No. of Stations

No. of Patients

No. of Units

No. of Stations

No. of Patients

No. of Units

No. of Stations

No. of Patients

1980

325

4,846

19,782

17

140

535

79

1,265

6,045

583

5,965

26,002

1981

397

5,621

23,341

16

137

494

99

1,461

6,771

612

6,291

28,318

1982

416

6,102

26,482

13

119

458

106

1,599

7,733

620

6,450

31,092

1983

482

6,950

30,560

13

78

351

128

1,887

9,603

594

6,301

31,473

1984

538

8,265

34,272

16

111

403

148

2,244

10,810

605

6,518

32,998

1985

605

9,073

38,120

17

114

338

158

2,413

11,697

612

6,626

34,642

1986

704

10,385

42,984

18

122

377

165

2,450

11,918

620

6,842

35,607

1987

786

11,594

48,478

17

124

368

175

2,495

12,337

640

7,152

37,249

1988

894

12,944

54,105

18

133

423

185

2,574

13,196

643

7,152

38,234

Average annual growth (%)

13.5

13.1

13.4

0.7

-0.6

2.9

11.2

9.3

10.3

1.2

2.3

4.9

Total share (%):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1980

32.4

29.7

37.8

1.7

1.1

1.0

7.9

10.4

11.5

58.1

8.8

49.7

1988

51.45

56.8

51.1

1.0

0.6

0.4

0.6

11.3

12.5

37.0

31.4

36.1

 

SOURCE: HCFA, 1980–88.

Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×

care by the non-profit sector declined steadily from 61 percent in 1980 to less than 49 percent in 1988 (Table 6-4).

Although the increase in average facility size was small—from 10.6 to 11.2 stations between 1980 and 1988—the overall utilization rate for the not-for-profit sector still increased significantly from 4.4 patients per station in 1980 to 5.3 patients per station in 1988. The not-for-profit sector accounted for 42.7 percent of the treatment capacity in 1988 but 48.5 percent of the total patient population.

For-Profit Providers

For-profit providers have been a major source of growth in outpatient dialysis since 1980 with increases in the numbers of facilities, dialysis stations, and patients receiving treatment.

Outpatient Dialysis Facilities For-profit units accounted for about 34 percent of all renal dialysis facilities in 1980 but more than 52 percent by 1988 (Figure 6-3), increasing from 325 to 894 at an average annual growth rate of 13.5 percent (Table 6-5). Proprietary dialysis facilities are predominantly independent units and included only 18 hospital-based units in 1988, up from 17 in 1980 (Table 6-5).

Dialysis Stations The total number of stations in for-profit facilities grew from 4,986 stations in 1980 to 13,077 stations in 1988, an average annual growth rate of 12.8 percent. The share of for-profit dialysis stations increased from 41 percent in 1980 to over 57 percent in 1988 (Table 6-4 and Figure 6-4).

Patients For-profit dialysis facilities provided maintenance dialysis to 20,317 patients in 1980 and to 54,528 patients by 1988, for an average annual increase of 13.1 percent (Table 6-4). The ''patient share'' treated by the for-profit sector increased from under 39 percent in 1980 to over 51 percent in 1988.

From 1980 to 1988, for-profit facilities and stations grew at a rate comparable to their patient load. Average facility size decreased slightly from 14.2 stations in 1980 to 14.0 stations in 1988. Consequently, the national patient/station ratio increased only slightly from 4.1 patients per station in 1980 to 4.2 patients per station in 1988.

Size of Outpatient Dialysis Facilities12

In general, the size of dialysis facilities, as measured by the number of stations in each unit, increased slightly during the 1980s. Small facilities (1–9 stations) grew at an average rate of only 4.9 percent annually, whereas medium-size (10–20 stations) and large (over 20 stations) facilities increased

Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×

FIGURE 6-3

Outpatient Hemodialysis Units, 1980–88: For-Profit Versus Not-For-Profit

SOURCE: HCFA, 1980–88.

FIGURE 6-4

Outpatient Hemodialysis Stations, 1980–88: For-Profit Versus Not-For-Profit Units

SOURCE: HCFA, 1980–88.

Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×

almost twice as fast at an average annual rate of nearly 9 percent from 1980 to 1988. The number of small facilities grew from 456 units in 1980 to 666 units in 1988, whereas the number of medium-size and large facilities nearly doubled during the same period from 419 units to 824 units and from 129 units to 250 units, respectively (Table 6-6 and Figure 6-5).

In 1980, over 45 percent of all facilities were small, 42 percent were medium-size, and 13 percent were large. By 1988, however, that distribution had changed to 38 percent, 47 percent, and 14 percent, respectively (Table 6-6).

A shift toward larger facilities is also evident in the relative shares of "treatment capacity." From 1980 to 1988, small facilities changed from accounting for over 22 percent of all dialysis stations to only about 18 percent; medium-size facilities increased from less than 48 percent of stations to over 50 percent; and large facilities increased from 30 percent of stations to 31 percent (Table 6-6).

Most hospital-based facilities remain small; they made up the second largest number of facilities in 1988 (Table 6-7). However, the medium-size and large facilities accounted for the growth of hospital-based renal treatment facilities during the 1980s. Although independent facilities are predominantly medium or large in size, they increased during the 1980s in all three size categories.

The growth of medium-size and large independent facilities is most evident in the for-profit sector. Medium-size for-profit independent facilities increased from 173 in 1980 to 490 by 1988, making them the single largest sector and accounting for over 28 percent of the number of facilities (Table 6-7) and almost 30 percent of the stations (Table 6-8). Additionally, the medium-size and large for-profit independent facilities together represented over 50 percent of the total dialysis stations in the entire provider community in 1988.

The largest renal treatment provider group in 1980 was small not-for-profit hospital-based facilities. By 1988, medium-size for-profit independent facilities made up the largest provider group. This is the most telling summary of structural changes in the renal treatment provider community. It is plausible that the growth of facility size has been stimulated by an effort to realize economies of scale. Other factors that are likely to have affected both facility size and the number of facilities are the changes in the availability of nursing staff and in the timing of patient treatment shifts. In the earlier years of the ESRD program, some units operated 24 hours a day, with four or five patient shifts. Over the past 10 to 15 years, physicians, nurses, and patients increasingly have rejected treatment at night. Consequently, either larger units or more units were needed to accommodate a reduction in the number of shifts and an increasing patient population.

Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×

TABLE 6-6 Outpatient Dialysis Providers, by Facility Size, 1980–88

 

Small (1–9 stations)

Medium (10–20 stations)

Large (20+ stations)

Year

No. of Units

No. of Stations

No. of Patients

No. of Units

No. of Stations

No. of Patients

No. of Units

No. of Stations

No. of Patients

1980

456

2,697

10,799

419

5,823

24,648

129

3,696

16,475

1981

527

3,146

12,904

454

6,304

27,320

143

4,060

18,480

1982

5-12

3,093

13,351

488

6,764

30,788

155

4,413

20,770

1983

545

3,366

14,822

508

7,134

33,089

164

4,716

22,426

1984

525

3,237

13,967

584

8,229

36,896

198

5,672

27,424

1985

556

3,406

15,427

627

8,838

40,073

209

5,982

28,959

1986

593

3,659

16,357

690

9,692

43,684

223

6,448

30,277

1987

630

3,953

17,448

751

10,579

48,368

237

6,848

32,182

1988

666

4,205

18,866

824

11,509

52,235

250

7,089

34,195

Average annual growth (%)

4.9

5.7

7.2

8.8

8.9

9.8

8.6

8.5

9.6

Total share (%):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1980

45.4

22.1

20.6

41.7

47.7

47.1

12.8

30.3

31.5

1988

38.2

18.4

17.8

47.4

50.5

49.3

14.4

31.1

32.3

 

SOURCE: HCFA, 1980–88.

Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×

FIGURE 6-5

Outpatient Dialysis Units, by Size, 1980–88 SOURCE: HCFA, 1980–88.

Facility Ownership

Facility ownership has long been of great concern in the health care sector. The past decade's growth of outpatient dialysis chains, defined by HCFA as two or more units under the same ownership, thus deserves attention. However, information about the chain affiliations of dialysis units is limited. A question on such affiliation was originally included in HCFA's annual facility survey, but many facilities, especially for-profit ones, did not indicate whether they were affiliated with a chain. After 1985, the question was removed. The following discussion is based, in part, on the information provided by Dialysis Management, Incorporated (D.L. Vlchek, Dialysis Management Incorporated, personal communication, October 10, 1989) which has not been independently validated.

As previously noted, independent dialysis facilities, especially the for-profit ones, have grown far more rapidly than hospital-based units during the past decade. This growth of proprietary independent facilities has been accompanied by an increase of multiunit "chains." The project staff estimate that by 1988 more than half of all 912 for-profit renal dialysis facilities were affiliated with a chain.

National Medical Care (NMC) is by far the largest for-profit chain. On the basis of the most recent data that were available to the study committee, almost 20 percent of all U.S. dialysis patients receive their regular maintenance dialysis treatments in one of the 300+ NMC-owned facilities. NMC

Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×

TABLE 6-7 Outpatient Dialysis Providers, by Type of Facility, Profit Status, and Size, 1980–88

 

Independent

Hospital-Based

 

For-Profit

Not-For-Profit

For-Profit

Not-For-Profit

Year

Small

Medium

Large

Small

Medium

Large

Small

Medium

Large

Small

Medium

Large

1980

87

173

65

18

43

18

13

3

1

338

200

45

1981

132

192

73

31

48

20

12

3

1

352

211

49

1982

120

215

81

35

46

25

9

3

1

348

224

48

1983

156

237

89

46

55

27

12

1

0

331

215

48

1984

135

293

110

47

66

35

13

3

0

330

222

53

1985

164

322

119

45

77

36

14

3

0

333

225

54

1986

195

380

129

50

81

34

14

3

0

334

226

60

1987

220

425

141

55

85

35

14

3

0

341

238

61

1988

250

490

155

61

90

34

14

4

0

341

241

61

Average annual growth (%)

14.1

13.9

11.5

16.5

9.7

8.3

0.9

3.7

-100

0.1

2.4

3.9

Total share (%):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1980

8.7

17.2

6.5

1.8

4.3

1.8

1.3

0.3

0.1

33.7

19.9

4.5

1988

4.4

28.2

8.9

3.5

5.2

2.0

0.8

0.2

0.0

19.6

13.9

3.5

NOTE: Small = 1–9 stations; medium = 10–20 stations; large = 20+ stations.

SOURCE: HCFA, 1980–88.

Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×

TABLE 6-8 Hemodialysis Stations, by Type of Facility, Profit Status, and Size, 1980–88

 

Independent

Hospital-Based

 

For-Profit

Not-for-Profit

For-Profit

Not-For-Profit

Year

Small

Medium

Large

Small

Medium

Large

Small

Medium

Large

Small

Medium

Large

1980

555

2,415

1,876

114

666

485

76

43

21

1,952

2,699

1,314

1981

840

2,689

2,092

196

733

532

73

43

21

2,037

2,839

1,415

1982

785

2,979

2,338

217

711

671

55

43

21

2,036

3,031

1,383

1983

1,071

3,334

2,545

290

847

750

66

12

0

1,939

2,941

1,421

1984

940

4,182

3,143

290

979

975

66

45

0

1,960

3,079

1,587

1985

1,109

4,583

3,381

268

1,131

1,041

69

45

0

1,960

3,079

1,587

1986

1,334

5,385

3,666

293

1,181

976

75

47

0

1,957

3,079

1,806

1987

1,504

6,038

4,052

329

1,200

966

84

40

0

2,036

3,301

1,830

1988

1,714

6,828

4,402

369

1,275

930

82

51

0

2,040

3,355

1,757

Average annual growth

15.1

13.9

11.3

15.8

8.5

8.5

1.0

2.2

-100

0.5

2.8

3.7

Total share (%):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1980

4.5

19.8

15.4

0.9

5.5

4.0

0.6

0.4

0.2

16.0

22.1

10.8

1988

7.5

29.9

19.3

1.6

5.6

4.1

0.4

0.2

0.0

9.0

14.7

7.7

NOTE: Small = 1–9 stations; medium = 10–20 stations; large = 20+ stations.

SOURCE: HCFA, 1980–88.

Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×

also provides dialysis supplies in the product market through its Dialysis Products Division, as well as laboratory services to over 30 percent of the dialysis market. Because NMC is a wholly owned subsidiary of W.R. Grace, Inc., the publicly available information reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission is quite limited.

In addition to NMC, there are four other major chains: Community Psychiatric Centers (which recently separated its dialysis division and formed a new publicly traded common stock company, Vivra Incorporated), Laguna Hills, California; Dialysis Clinics, Incorporated (DCI), Nashville, Tennessee; National Medical Enterprises—Medical Ambulatory Care (MAC), Tacoma, Washington; and REN Corporation-USA, Nashville, Tennessee. Of these, DCI is the only not-for-profit chain. The size of these chains varies from approximately 18 facilities (REN Corporation) to 85 facilities (Vivra). Together, these four chains owned nearly 200 facilities and provided services to about 10,000 patients in 1989. Vivra and REN, in 1989, became the first publicly traded all-dialysis service corporations.

Additionally, there are a number of smaller chains, including Greenfield Health Systems Corporation, Detroit, Michigan; Renal Treatment Centers Corporation, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Satellite Dialysis, San Francisco, California; Northwest Kidney Center, Seattle, Washington; Salick Health Care, Los Angeles, California; Kidney Care, Jackson, Mississippi; Clinishare, Los Angeles, California; Neomedica Dialysis Centers, Inc., Chicago, Illinois; Home Intensive Care, N. Miami Beach, Florida; Hemodialysis, Inc., Los Angeles, California; West Suburban Kidney Centers, Chicago, Illinois; Health Systems Management, southeastern United States; New West Dialysis, Sacramento, California; Tidewater Nephrology Associates, Norfolk, Virginia; Regional Kidney Disease Program, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and American Outpatient Services Corporation, Los Angeles, California. These chains together serve an estimated 8,000 to 10,000 dialysis patients. Allowing for some other small chains not accounted for, we estimate that in 1989 nearly 50,000 out of a total of 116,000 dialysis patients received their dialysis treatments in chain-affiliated facilities.

HCFA's current renal data systems do not identify ownership except as for-profit or not-for-profit, and as individual, corporate, or public institutions. Individual units, however, may be owned by one or more nephrologists, or by nonnephrologists (physicians as well as nonphysicians), or jointly by nephrologists and nonnephrologists. The possibility of conflicts of interest over physician ownership of dialysis units cannot be examined with current data.

A market exists for buying and selling renal dialysis facilities. A few hospitals and the large proprietary chains are the major buyers, whereas physician owners and hospitals are usually the sellers. Purchasing terms are usually based on potential revenue, i.e., number of regular patients in the

Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×

facilities (Dialysis Management Inc. 1990. Perspectives on the renal care provider community—1989. Golden Colorado, unpublished data). Prices range from $10,000 to $40,000 per patient. During 1988–89, one hospital in Ohio bought a unit with 50 patients for $2.3 million, i.e., $46,000 per patient. The average purchase price in 1988, however, was estimated at $18,000 to $20,000 per patient. Prices apparently fell in 1989 to an estimated range of $15,000 to $18,000 per patient; changes in federal income tax law, quite independent of ESRD, significantly slowed corporate acquisitions. In states without CON regulations, the prices tend to be lower.

Proprietary health care facilities grew rapidly in the American health care system in the past decade. Consequently, concerns have been raised about the effect of profit-seeking on medical decision making (Gray, 1986). In the ESRD program, it is unclear whether the quality of care is affected by facility ownership or chain affiliation. The multiunit chains presumably realize economies of scale and generate higher profit margins on the firm level than do sole-owner units. However, some studies have suggested that competition in local markets may reduce facilities' profits by driving them to provide more amenities to patients (Held and Pauly, 1983). Objective and credible information about the profitability of renal dialysis chains is still quite limited, as is the relation between ownership and quality of care.

CONCLUSIONS

Renal dialysis facilities have increased substantially in number since the ESRD program started in 1973. This increase has paralleled the growth of the patient population, although certain geographic areas still lack adequate treatment capacity to meet increasing demand. In addition, other factors may influence growth in the number of facilities. Facilities seeking to protect their existing patient base (or local market share) from competitors may open additional units conveniently located for their patients.13 Growth in the number of units also may respond to a desire for independence from a corporate organization or from a hospital by physicians. In light of the increased demand for treatment, the committee finds that the rate of growth in outpatient treatment capacity is reasonable.

The quality-of-care implications of the changing composition of the dialysis provider community need careful monitoring. The continued expansion of dialysis capacity, especially in the independent for-profit sector, cannot in itself be taken as evidence that reimbursement is adequate to provide quality care. Only an integrated assessment of cost and quality would permit such judgments to be made. However, as discussed in Chapters 11 and 12, neither the federal government nor providers have monitored quality systematically or developed adequate tools for its assessment.

Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×

The quality implications of the shift toward for-profit and physician ownership merit careful assessment. The committee is aware of no evidence that the shift from hospital-based to independent and from not-for-profit to for-profit dialysis facilities has resulted in problems in access or quality. The lack of systematic efforts to assess quality, as indicated above, preclude the development of such evidence at this time. The committee recommends, however, that ownership changes be monitored closely over time and that means be developed to assess their implications for access and quality.

NOTES

1.  

In this chapter, the term "provider" refers to treatment facilities, not physicians, unless otherwise noted.

2.  

HCFA defines a chain as two or more facilities under the same ownership.

3.  

A dialysis station consists of a dialysis machine, a chair or a bed, and the associated floor space required to dialyze a single patient.

4.  

About 80 percent of all dialysis patients are treated as in-center hemodialysis patients; the remaining 20 percent are primarily home dialysis patients, most of whom receive peritoneal dialysis.

5.  

Treatments here refer to outpatient hemodialysis only. Peritoneal dialysis treatments are excluded from the statistics to better capture the relationship between number of hemodialysis treatments and number of dialysis stations, and thus to estimate utilization more precisely.

6.  

Average treatment/station ratios provided here are national, not facility-specific, figures.

7.  

The primary exception to this practice is the rule that a six-antigen match between an organ and a prospective donor must be shared.

8.  

See Chapter 5 for a discussion of pediatric ESRD patients. According to the prevalent patient count, there were 3,989 patients under age 20 in 1987.

9.  

The distinction between hospital-based and independent outpatient dialysis providers is based on HCFA's categorization of renal treatment facilities. Currently, HCFA distinguishes between hospital-based and independent (sometimes called freestanding) units by ownership, not by operational characteristics. Major differences exist, however, among "hospital-based" facilities in terms of their operation and patient population: Some are physically located within a hospital and dialyze mainly inpatients and a very limited number of outpatients; many, however, are not physically located within a hospital, care mainly for outpatients, and do not differ operationally from independent units.

10.  

Data on utilization, measured by the number of treatments per station per year, were not readily available for the period from 1980 to 1988. The number of patients per station per year is used as a rough equivalent here. The patient/station ratio for independent facilities was 4.3 patients per station in 1988, a slight increase from 4.2 in 1980.

11.  

The discussion here refers to dialysis facilities only. Physician ownership should not be confused with the for-profit or not-for-profit status of such facilities. Nephrologists who serve as medical directors or attending physicians at for-profit facilities do not necessarily own them.

12.  

The size of a dialysis facility is defined here by the number of stations: a small facility has 1 to 9 stations; a medium-size facility has 10 to 20 stations; and a large facility has more than 20 stations.

13.  

This point was suggested by Dr. David D. Zinn, Medical Director of Northeast Alabama Kidney Clinic, Inc., personal communication, May 17, 1990.

Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×

REFERENCES

Community Psychiatric Centers. 1989. Proxy Statement, July 12. Laguna Hills, Calif.


Gray BN., ed. 1986. For-Profit Enterprise in Health Care. Institute of Medicine. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.


HCFA (Health Care Financing Administration). 1980–88. Annual Facility Surveys. Baltimore, Md.

Held PJ, Pauly MV. 1983. Competition and efficiency in the End-Stage Renal Disease program. J Health Econ 2:95-118.


IHPP (Intergovernmental Health Policy Project). 1989. Certificate of Need (CON) Regulation of ESRD Service: Findings of a 50-State Survey. Report prepared for the Institute of Medicine. George Washington University, Washington, D.C.


National Association of Children's Hospitals and Related Institutions. 1987. Pediatric Patient Profile. Unpublished data.


OIG (Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). 1987. Organ acquisition costs: An overview. Washington, D.C., September.


Prottas J. 1985. The structure and effectiveness of the U.S. organ procurement system. Inquiry 22:366.


REN Corporation-USA. 1989. Prospectus, November 28. Nashville, Tenn.


Task Force on Organ Transplantation. 1986. Organ Transplantation: Issues and Answers. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, pp. 214–216.


USRDS (U.S. Renal Data System). 1989. USRDS 1989 Annual Data Report. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, Md., August.

Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"Structure of the Provider Community." Institute of Medicine. 1991. Kidney Failure and the Federal Government. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1818.
×
Page 132
Next: Part III: Access, Access Problems of ESRD Patients »
Kidney Failure and the Federal Government Get This Book
×
Buy Hardback | $59.95
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Since 1972, many victims of endstage renal disease (ESRD) have received treatment under a unique Medicare entitlement. This book presents a comprehensive analysis of the federal ESRD program: who uses it, how well it functions, and what improvements are needed.

The book includes recommendations on patient eligibility, reimbursement, quality assessment, medical ethics, and research needs.

Kidney Failure and the Federal Government offers a wealth of information on these and other topics:

  • The ESRD patient population.
  • Dialysis and transplantation providers.
  • Issues of patient access and availability of treatment.
  • Ethical issues related to treatment initiation and termination.
  • Payment policies and their relationship to quality of care.

This book will have a major impact on the future of the ESRD program and will be of interest to health policymakers, nephrologists and other individual providers, treatment site administrators, and researchers.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!