The price of dialysis access: Implications of access type and patient-centric approaches to cost
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study explores out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for patients and provider reimbursement for dialysis access creation. It aims to illustrate the financial characteristics of four dialysis access modalities to consider in decision-making for clinicians, patients, and payers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective data from the Merative™ MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Databases from 2017 to 2022 was analyzed for patients who received an arteriovenous fistula (AVF), arteriovenous graft (AVG), peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC), or percutaneous AVF (pAVF). ANOVA and Tukey HSD were used to assess cost differences among the four access modalities overall and in the context of insurance type and service site. RESULTS: Database extraction resulted in 20,863 unique procedures, comprising of 15,043 AVF, 4759 AVG, 896 PDC, and 165 pAVF. Mean age was 59.2 years (±14.19) and 60.53% of the cohort was male. EPO/PPO plans were the most represented (53.06%) and most procedures were performed in the hospital outpatient department (91.99%). There were significant differences found among OOP cost and reimbursement with respect to procedure type, insurance type, and service site. Overall, pAVF had both the highest cost and reimbursement. CONCLUSION: Patient OOP costs and provider reimbursement differ significantly based on procedure, insurance type, and service site. While pAVF creation is recognized with high reimbursements due to its complexity and the advanced technology required, it also has the highest OOP costs for patients. To help facilitate adoption of new technologies like pAVF, advocacy efforts should focus on encouraging payers to lower the OOP financial barriers for patients to receive these newer but costlier procedures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".