Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38193961›Full record

ArticleJAMA2024

Social Risk and Dialysis Facility Performance in the First Year of the ESRD Treatment Choices Model.

Kalli G Koukounas, Rebecca Thorsness, Rachel E Patzer, Adam S Wilk, Kelsey M Drewry, Rajnish Mehrotra, Maricruz Rivera-Hernandez, David J Meyers, Daeho Kim, Amal N Trivedi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Preventable Hospitalizations and Kidney Care.Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Neighborhood Built Environment and Home Dialysis Utilization: Varying Patterns by Urbanicity-Dependent Patterns and Implications for Policy.American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Kalli G KoukounasDepartment of Health Services, Policy and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island.
Rebecca ThorsnessProvidence VA Medical Center, Providence, Rhode Island.
Rachel E PatzerRegenstrief Institute, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Adam S WilkDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Kelsey M DrewryRegenstrief Institute, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Rajnish MehrotraDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle.
Maricruz Rivera-HernandezDepartment of Health Services, Policy and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island.
David J MeyersDepartment of Health Services, Policy and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island.
Daeho KimDepartment of Health Services, Policy and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island.
Amal N TrivediDepartment of Health Services, Policy and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island.

Funding

Impact of Randomized Payment Incentives on Disparities in Home Dialysis and Kidney TransplantationR01MD017080 · NIMHD · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI Rachel E Patzer, AMAL N. TRIVEDI · 2022 to 2026
$3.2M
Effects of Expanding Medicare Advantage Enrollment toPersons with End-stage Renal DiseaseR01DK129388 · NIDDK · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI TRIVEDI, AMAL N. · 2021 to 2024
$2.4M
Medicaid Expansion, Coverage Loss, and Disparities in Kidney Health in the COVID-19 EraR01DK113298 · NIDDK · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI TRIVEDI, AMAL N. · 2017 to 2023
$2.2M
Multi-level Factors that Influence Dialysis Facilities' Assessments of Patient Suitability for TransplantationK01DK128384 · NIDDK · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI WILK, ADAM STEVEN · 2021 to 2025
$744k
NIDDK NIH HHS K01 DK128384NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK113298NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK129388NIMHD NIH HHS R01 MD017080
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The End-Stage Renal Disease Treatment Choices (ETC) model randomly selected 30% of US dialysis facilities to receive financial incentives based on their use of home dialysis, kidney transplant waitlisting, or transplant receipt. Facilities that disproportionately serve populations with high social risk have a lower use of home dialysis and kidney transplant raising concerns that these sites may fare poorly in the payment model. Objective: To examine first-year ETC model performance scores and financial penalties across dialysis facilities, stratified by their incident patients' social risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study of 2191 US dialysis facilities that participated in the ETC model from January 1 through December 31, 2021. Exposure: Composition of incident patient population, characterized by the proportion of patients who were non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, living in a highly disadvantaged neighborhood, uninsured, or covered by Medicaid at dialysis initiation. A facility-level composite social risk score assessed whether each facility was in the highest quintile of having 0, 1, or at least 2 of these characteristics. Main Outcomes and Measures: Use of home dialysis, waitlisting, or transplant; model performance score; and financial penalization. Results: Using data from 125 984 incident patients (median age, 65 years [IQR, 54-74]; 41.8% female; 28.6% Black; 11.7% Hispanic), 1071 dialysis facilities (48.9%) had no social risk features, and 491 (22.4%) had 2 or more. In the first year of the ETC model, compared with those with no social risk features, dialysis facilities with 2 or more had lower mean performance scores (3.4 vs 3.6, P = .002) and lower use of home dialysis (14.1% vs 16.0%, P < .001). These facilities had higher receipt of financial penalties (18.5% vs 11.5%, P < .001), more frequently had the highest payment cut of 5% (2.4% vs 0.7%; P = .003), and were less likely to achieve the highest bonus of 4% (0% vs 2.7%; P < .001). Compared with all other facilities, those in the highest quintile of treating uninsured patients or those covered by Medicaid experienced more financial penalties (17.4% vs 12.9%, P = .01) as did those in the highest quintile in the proportion of patients who were Black (18.5% vs 12.6%, P = .001). Conclusions: In the first year of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' ETC model, dialysis facilities serving higher proportions of patients with social risk features had lower performance scores and experienced markedly higher receipt of financial penalties.

Indexed as

Healthcare DisparitiesKidney Failure, ChronicReimbursement, IncentiveRenal DialysisSelf CareSocial Determinants of HealthAgedBlack or African AmericanBlack PeopleCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHispanic or LatinoHumansKidney TransplantationMaleMedicaid

Identifiers

PMID38193961
PMCPMC10777251

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.