Premium
Costs of Quotidian Home Hemodialysis
Author(s) -
Kroeker A,
Clark W.F.,
Heidenheim A.P.,
Kuenzig L.,
Leitch R.,
Lindsay R.M.,
Meyette M.,
Muirhead N.,
Ryan H.,
Welch R.,
White S.
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
hemodialysis international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.658
H-Index - 47
eISSN - 1542-4758
pISSN - 1492-7535
DOI - 10.1046/j.1492-7535.2003.01252.x
Subject(s) - medicine , hemodialysis , home hemodialysis , dialysis , emergency medicine , surgery
One of the deterrents to more widespread adoption of quotidian dialysis is concern over increased supply and equipment costs. Purpose: Operating costs for short‐hour daily (SHD) and slow nocturnal hemodialysis (NHD) were compared with those of conventional hemodialysis patients (CHD). Methods: 10 SHD, 12 NHD and 22 matched CHD patients were enrolled in the study for 18 months. Costs were tracked in two groupings: Patient Measured (PM‐ dependent on patient's health status) and Support Modeled (SM‐ system costs to support all patients). A retrospective analysis of the previous year's PM costs was also performed. Results: SHD patients saw an increase in PM costs, as treatment supply increases were not offset by decreases in consults, drugs, hospitalizations and lab tests. NHD patients saw their total PM costs drop as drug, consults and lab savings more than offset higher supplies costs. CHD patient study costs were between the SHD and NHD values. SHD and NHD achieved lower SM costs due to savings in RN and other labor expenses that more than offset higher machine, water and biomedical costs. Note that substantial variance coupled with small sample size prevented achievement of statistically significant values.Costs Daily (SHD) Nocturnal (NHD) Control (CHD) ($Can) Retro Study Retro Study StudyPM 38,290 40,691 53,028 47,411 33,923 SM 38,765 26,590 38,765 26,960 38,765 Total 77,055 67,281 91,793 74,371 72,688Conclusions: SHD and NHD patients appeared to achieve clinical benefits compared to CHD patients while reducing total PM and SM cost.