Cost Controversies of a “Home Dialysis First” Policy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Kidney Failure is highly prevalent and uses a disproportionate amount of health care funding. In Canada (excluding Quebec), 37 647 people were living with kidney failure in 2016. The single-payer Canadian health care system spends approximately 1.2% of their annual budget on kidney failure. In 2016, 58.4% of patients with kidney failure in Canada (excluding Quebec) were on dialysis as opposed to living with a functioning kidney transplant. Home dialysis modalities including peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home hemodialysis (HD) were used by 18.9% and 4.7% of these patients, respectively. In-center HD and home dialysis (PD and home HD) are often considered equally efficacious and have similar impacts on quality of life. Despite cost minimization analyses suggesting that home dialysis offers cost savings over in-center HD, there has been a slow uptake of home dialysis in developed nations over time, suggesting that controversies and barriers to implementation currently exist. The primary objective of this health policy briefing article is to introduce and address some of the major controversies surrounding the cost effectiveness in supporting advocacy for a “Home Dialysis First” policy with a primary focus on single-payer systems in a developed nation such as Canada. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), Canadian and US epidemiologic databases, national/international conference presentations, primary literature review, and discussion with experts within the field of home dialysis. METHODS: We have conducted a focused primary literature review alongside individuals with expertise in the field of home dialysis to discuss the cost controversies surrounding the implementation of a “Home Dialysis First” policy. KEY FINDINGS: First, the primary literature is limited to mostly observational studies which are highly variable in study design and content. Local economic assessments, however, have provided convincing data for home dialysis cost savings in Canada. Second, the cost of delivering dialysis differs significantly throughout the world, explained by differing costs of labor and supplies in developing nations. Third, the indirect patient costs of water, energy, and home modifications are often barriers to implementation and may be overcome by introducing cost reimbursement programs. Fourth, home dialysis requires upfront training costs. We explore the impact of premature switches from home dialysis to in-center HD or a functioning kidney transplant on overall cost savings. Fifth, we discuss the effect of physician financial incentives and program funding on the uptake of home dialysis. Finally, we introduce the controversial topic of comparing the societal value of freedom of modality choice against the societal cost savings of a “Home Dialysis First” policy. LIMITATIONS: Narrative reviews, due to their inherently reduced methodological quality in comparison with systematic reviews, may expose our collected literature to selection bias. We have attempted to compose a diverse collection of available literature alongside consensus expertise to provide a fair and concise review of home dialysis cost controversies. IMPLICATIONS: Implementation of a “Home Dialysis First” policy would be a disruptive change to kidney failure care in Canada. To make informed policy decisions, we should recognize the cost savings associated with home dialysis in developed nations, the significance of patient-borne costs as a barrier to implementation, the impact of training costs and early modality switching in home dialysis, the lack of evidence regarding physician financial incentives, and the importance of program funding. Ultimately, we must consider the societal value of freedom of patient modality choice in comparison with the potential cost savings of a “Home Dialysis First” policy.