Show simple item record

FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorvan der Tol, Arjan
dc.contributor.authorLamerire, Norbert
dc.contributor.authorMorton, Rachael L.
dc.contributor.authorBiesen, Wim Van
dc.contributor.authorVanholder, Raymond
dc.date.accessioned2023-02-16T01:10:16Z
dc.date.available2023-02-16T01:10:16Z
dc.date.issued2019en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2123/30055
dc.description.abstractBackground and objectives The prevalence of patients with ESKD who receive extracorporeal kidney replacement therapy is rising worldwide. We compared government reimbursement for hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis worldwide, assessed the effect on the government health care budget, and discussed strategies to reduce the cost of kidney replacement therapy. Design, setting, participants, & measurements Cross-sectional global survey of nephrologists in 90 countries to assess reimbursement for dialysis, number of patients receiving hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, and measures to prevent development or progression of CKD, conducted online July to December of 2016. Results Of the 90 survey respondents, governments from 81 countries (90%) provided reimbursement for maintenance dialysis. The prevalence of patients per million population being treated with long-term dialysis in low- and middle-income countries increased linearly with Gross Domestic Product per capita (GDP per capita), but was substantially lower in these countries compared with high-income countries where we did not observe an higher prevalence with higher GDP per capita. The absolute expenditure for dialysis by national governments showed a positive association with GDP per capita, but the percent of total health care budget spent on dialysis showed a negative association. The percentage of patients on peritoneal dialysis was low, even in countries where peritoneal dialysis is better reimbursed than hemodialysis. The so-called peritoneal dialysis–first policy without financial incentive seems to be effective in increasing the utilization of peritoneal dialysis. Few countries actively provide CKD prevention. Conclusions In low- and middle-income countries, reimbursement of dialysis is insufficient to treat all patients with ESKD and has a disproportionately high effect on public health expenditure. Current reimbursement policies favor conventional in-center hemodialysis.en_AU
dc.publisherClinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrologyen_AU
dc.rightsCopyright All Rights Reserveden_AU
dc.subjectInternational Analysisen_AU
dc.subjectDialysis Servicesen_AU
dc.subjectReimbursementen_AU
dc.titleAn International Analysis of Dialysis Services Reimbursementen_AU
dc.typeArticleen_AU
dc.identifier.doi10.2215/CJN.08150718
dc.type.pubtypeAuthor accepted manuscripten_AU
usyd.facultySeS faculties schools::Faculty of Medicine and Health::NHMRC Clinical Trials Centreen_AU
workflow.metadata.onlyYesen_AU


Show simple item record

Associated file/s

There are no files associated with this item.

Associated collections

Show simple item record

There are no previous versions of the item available.