THE BUNDLE IS COMING! THE BUNDLE IS COMING!
M. Krishnan,T. Mayne,A. Nissenson
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3747/pdi.2010.00217
2011-01-01
Peritoneal Dialysis International
Abstract:“T he bundle is coming! The bundle is coming!” Almost like Paul Revere, many are running through the dialysis world saying those very words. Some move with trepidation and fear of the unknown, and others with awe as they gaze upon new opportunities to improve care. We are firmly in the latter camp. With the recent release of the final end-stage renal disease (ESRD) prospective payment system (PPS) rule, the nephrology community has seen a positive CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) response to the nearly 1600 comments submitted on the proposed rule. A postponement of the inclusion of oral drugs in the bundle until 2014, specification of the labs that are and are not included in the bundle, and use of a limited set of case-mix adjusters (1,2) are all good signs pointing to a successful change in the payment system. In addition, as the accompanying article shows, the overall structure of the new payment system should be helpful in further advancing the use of home modalities. First, as Golper points out, the unit of payment is the dialysis treatment. At both a logistical and a practical level, this choice is the right one for the renal community and for home patients. The fact that all modalities are reimbursed at the same amount, consistent with the previous payment system, is also important. As the article suggests, the prudent policy rationale for this approach is more likely epidemiologic than economic. Many have argued that the cross-sectional data support the view that lower total medical costs are being incurred by home-modality patients than by in-center patients, but in the absence of a prospective trial, great care must be taken in concluding causality. Given the inherent selection bias that allows some patients to dialyze more independently at home while others remain in the dialysis center, there is no guarantee that switching every dialysis patient from an in-center to a home modality confers the same reduction in economic benefit. That being said, home modalities for medically appropriate patients do represent advantages in terms of lifestyle and independence. Therefore, continuing to reimburse all modalities at the same rate makes sound policy and scientific sense. However, and unfortunately for patients on more frequent home hemodialysis, routine payment for only three treatments will still not permit most providers to offer that modality. Second, in response to an avalanche of public comments, CMS has restored the home training fees to the bundle—although with the caveat that those fees will not be paid in the first four months of dialysis. Still, as many had argued in their comment letters, the abolition of such fees had the potential to negatively affect home dialysis programs, and on this aspect, the reversal from the proposed to final rule is welcome. An additional issue that affects all ESRD patients regardless of modality is that of the transition adjustment (3). In exchange for the “privilege” of either committing to the new payment system 100% (“opting in”) or gradually easing into the new system by blending old and new payment systems over a four-year period (“phasing in”), CMS has applied a 3.1% reduction in payments to all providers. The rationale for this reduction is that CMS has modeled the ratio of units phasing in to those opting in and is using the reduction to compensate and ensure that mandated program savings are met. Facilities have now declared their intention, and 98% of facilities will opt in to the bundled payment, making the 3.1% transition adjustor inappropriate. In addition, in enabling bundling, Congress mandated that a 2% reduction in payment be effected, on the expectation of increased efficiency by dialysis providers. Because of the additional transition adjustment, however, the actual reduction on a unit level may be more like 5.1%, which is not consistent with actual legislation or the intent of Congress. The renal community continues to oppose this transition tax. Lastly, with regard to the sanctity of the physician– patient relationship mentioned in the article, we believe