Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20403066›Full record

ArticleHealth services research2010

Reexploring differences among for-profit and nonprofit dialysis providers.

Donald K K Lee, Glenn M Chertow, Stefanos A Zenios

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Health services research, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Safety-Net Care for Maintenance Dialysis in the United States.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2020
    Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Market Consolidation and Mortality in Patients Initiating Hemodialysis.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2019
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Comparison of hospitalization rates among for-profit and nonprofit dialysis facilities.Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2014
    Article
  18. Patient care staffing levels and facility characteristics in U.S. hemodialysis facilities.American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation · 2013
    Article
  19. Facility size, race and ethnicity, and mortality for in-center hemodialysis.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2013
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Donald K K LeeSchool of Mangement, Yale Univeristy, New Haven, CT.
Glenn M Chertow
Stefanos A Zenios

Funding

Frequent Hemodialysis Network - West Coast ConsortiumU01DK066481 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI CHERTOW, GLENN MATTHEW · 2003 to 2010
$5.2M
Mentoring Patient-Oriented Clinical Investigators in NephrologyK24DK085446 · NIDDK · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI CHERTOW, GLENN MATTHEW · 2010 to 2022
$1.4M
NIDDK NIH HHS K24 DK085446NIDDK NIH HHS N01 DK-1-2450NIDDK NIH HHS U01 DK066481
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine whether profit status is associated with differences in hospital days per patient, an outcome that may also be influenced by provider financial goals. DATA SOURCES: United States Renal Data System Standard Analysis Files and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services cost reports.

designWe compared the number of hospital days per patient per year across for-profit and nonprofit dialysis facilities during 2003. To address possible referral bias in the assignment of patients to dialysis facilities, we used an instrumental variable regression method and adjusted for selected patient-specific factors, facility characteristics such as size and chain affiliation, as well as metrics of market competition. DATA EXTRACTION

methodsAll patients who received in-center hemodialysis at any time in 2003 and for whom Medicare was the primary payer were included (N=170,130; roughly two-thirds of the U.S. hemodialysis population). Patients dialyzed at hospital-based facilities and patients with no dialysis facilities within 30 miles of their residence were excluded.

resultsOverall, adjusted hospital days per patient were 17+/-5 percent lower in nonprofit facilities. The difference between nonprofit and for-profit facilities persisted with the correction for referral bias. There was no association between hospital days per patient per year and chain affiliation, but larger facilities had inferior outcomes (facilities with 73 or more patients had a 14+/-1.7 percent increase in hospital days relative to facilities with 35 or fewer patients). Differences in outcomes among for-profit and nonprofit facilities translated to 1,600 patient-years in hospital that could be averted each year if the hospital utilization rates in for-profit facilities were to decrease to the level of their nonprofit counterparts.

conclusionsHospital days per patient-year were statistically and clinically significantly lower among nonprofit dialysis providers. These findings suggest that the indirect incentives in Medicare's current payment system may provide insufficient incentive for for-profit providers to achieve optimal patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Health Facilities, ProprietaryHealth Services ResearchHospitalizationHumansInsurance Claim ReportingLength of StayMarketing of Health ServicesMedicareOrganizational AffiliationOutcome Assessment, Health CareOwnershipReferral and ConsultationRegression AnalysisReimbursement, IncentiveRenal DialysisRisk Adjustment

Identifiers

PMID20403066
PMCPMC2875752

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.