#933 How to increase PD based on cost-effectivenes analysis in Polish heathcare system
Abstract Background and Aims Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is one of well-established renal replacement therapy method and its usefulness is unquestionable. Despite this fact the number of patients treated with PD in Poland remains on the level about 4% of all patients treated with dialysis. There are several reasons of such low patients ratio e.g. late referral to dialysis, limited access to PD services as well as procedure description and public Payer requirements. The aim of analysis was peritoneal dialysis cost-effectiveness assessment compared with hemodialysis in patients starting chronic dialysis treatment and detailed comparison of both methods in terms of their cost-effectiveness for healthcare system. This study also assessed the impact of increasing the prevalence of peritoneal dialysis compared to hemodialysis on the Polish healthcare system. Method Assessment of cost-effectiveness of peritoneal dialysis versus hemodialysis was performed on cost-utility analysis basis, which result is incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) where the measure of health effect is quality-adjusted life years (QUALY). Health effect assessment was made on systematic review basis (studies comparing directly hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis have been taken into consideration). Additionally one way sensitivity analysis was perform to check additional factors which may influence on ICUR. In budget impact analysis three scenarios have been taken into consideration – current status as base scenario and two additional scenarios with PD patients population growth in 5 years horizon (where the PD patient population will grow to 10% patients on dialysis in the fifth year) All calculations were performed according Polish Health Technology Assessment (HTA) regulations. Results The analysis showed that peritoneal dialysis is cost-effective compared to hemodialysis. The costs of an additional quality-adjusted life year obtained using PD instead of HD are lower than the applicable cost-effectiveness threshold (set, according to Polish HTA recommendation, at PLN 217,641). Peritoneal dialysis generates additional savings for the payer in selected cost categories like hospitalizations, costs of creating renal replacement access and costs related to deaths. Also peritoneal dialysis instead of hemodialysis is a treatment option with superior health benefits in terms of quality-adjusted survival. Results of one-way sensitivity analysis, conducted for the results of cost-utility and cost-consequence analysis indicate the possibility to get even better results (lower ICUR rate) than in the basic analysis. The main factor improving the results is PD patients better quality of life arising from possibility of home treatment and higher independence, less visits in hospital/dialysis center, lower dietary and fluid restrictions, possibility of professional of social activity at an unchanged level. Budget impact analysis shows that PD patients ratio increase (from 4% to 10% of dialyzed patients population) won't significantly influence on total healthcare system spendings for dialysis. In 5 years horizon this change will generate 0.7% growth of overall spending for dialysis. Conclusion According to analysis performed, peritoneal dialysis appears as cost effective treatment option from healthcare system perspective. The origin of low PD patient number lies in other limitations like regulatory barriers (procedure description and public payer requirements), low awareness of possible treatment option (low quality or lack of predialysis education) and late referral to dialysis. To increase PD patients population in Poland systemic changes are needed—incentive for the centers achieving specified PD ratio, obligation for predialysis education for all patients referred to renal replacement therapy, access facilitation for the patients unable to self-treatment (assisted PD with nurse or medical assistant).
Read more