Association of the Comprehensive ESRD Care Model with Treatment Adherence
Authors: Hirth Richard A. , Nahra Tammie , Segal Jonathan H. , Gunden Joseph , Marrufo Grecia , Negrusa Brighita , Boyer Gregory , Jiao Amy , Sleeman Kathryn , Dahlerus Claudia , Wiens Jennifer , Ullman Darin , Bacon Kelsey , Strubler Daniel , Braun Rebecca , Ackerman Ariana , Li Yi 
Published: December 2021

Key Points

Improving dialysis adherence was a strategic objective of many providers in the Comprehensive ESRD Care (CEC) Model.

We assessed adherence using the percent of treatments received as-scheduled rate and likelihood a skipped treatment was rescheduled.

Adherence was improved among patients aligned to the CEC Model relative to the matched comparison group, but the effect magnitudes were modest.

Background

Poor adherence to scheduled dialysis treatments is common and can cause adverse clinical and economic outcomes. In 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation launched the Comprehensive ESRD Care (CEC) Model, a novel modification of the Accountable Care Organization framework. Many model participants reported efforts to increase dialysis adherence and promptly reschedule missed treatments.

Methods

With Medicare databases covering 2014–2019, we used difference-in-differences models to compare treatment adherence among patients aligned to 1037 CEC facilities relative to those aligned to matched comparison facilities, while accounting for their differences at baseline. Using dates of service, we identified patients who typically received three weekly treatments and the days when treatments typically occurred. Skipped treatments were defined as days when the patient was not hospitalized but did not receive an expected treatment, and rescheduled treatments as days when a patient who had skipped their previous treatment received an additional treatment before their next expected treatment date.

Results

Patients in the CEC Model had higher odds of attending as-scheduled sessions relative to the comparison group, although the effect was only marginally significant (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.04, P=0.08). Effects were stronger among females (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.06, P=0.06) than males (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.04, P=0.49), and among those aged <70 years (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.05, P=0.04) than those aged ≥70 years (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.04, P=0.96). The CEC was associated with higher odds of rescheduled sessions (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.14, P<0.001). Effects were significant for both sexes, but were larger among males (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.18, P<0.001) than females (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.13, P=0.01), and effects were significant among those <70 years (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.17, P<0.001), but not those ≥70 years (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.07, P=0.80).

Conclusions

The CEC Model is intended to incentivize strategies to prevent costly interventions. Because poor dialysis adherence may precipitate hospitalizations or other adverse events, many CEC Model participants encouraged adherence and promptly rescheduled missed treatments as strategic priorities. This study suggests these efforts were a success, although the absolute magnitudes of the effects were modest.