Dialysis Organizations Research Articles

Policy and Pandemic: The Changing Practice of Nephrology During the Coronavirus Disease-2019 Outbreak.

The coronavirus (coronavirus disease-2019) pandemic has changed care delivery for patients with end-stage kidney disease. We explore the US healthcare system as it pertains to dialysis care, including existing policies, modifications implemented in response to the coronavirus disease-2019 crisis, and possible next steps for policy makers and nephrologists. This includes policies related to resource management, use of telemedicine, prioritization of dialysis access procedures, expansion of home dialysis modalities, administrative duties, and quality assessment. The government has already established policies that have instated some flexibilities to help providers focus their response to the crisis. However, future policy during and after the coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic can bolster our ability to optimize care for patients with end-stage kidney disease. Key themes in this perspective are the importance of policy flexibility, clear strategies for emergency preparedness, and robust health systems that maximize accessibility and patient autonomy.

Management of Hemodialysis Patients with Suspected or Confirmed COVID-19 Infection: Perspective of Two Nephrologists in the United States.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is unprecedented and information about the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is evolving rapidly. New York is one of the epicenters of the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States, reporting >1000 confirmed cases as of March 17, 2020, and cases are escalating exponentially. The majority of cases are in Westchester County ( n =220) and New York City (NYC; n =463), which includes Bronx (1). The local index patient case was a Westchester man who became ill on February 22, was not associated with a recent travel exposure to a country on the watch list (China, Iran, South Korea, and Italy), or known to have had direct contact with a COVID-19–confirmed patient. At the present time it is estimated that community-wide transmission accounts for 87% of confirmed cases. Nephrologists in the Bronx have been handicapped in managing patients with ESKD during the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic due to the limitations of available rapid testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Montefiore Medical Center, located in the north Bronx in close proximity to Westchester, has been one of the main tertiary care hospitals in NYC caring for persons under investigation (PUIs) and for COVID-19–confirmed patients. Our nephrology division’s clinical faculty care for approximately 850 patients with ESKD (approximately 800 on hemodialysis and approximately 50 on peritoneal dialysis) in 12 outpatient hemodialysis facilities (two Fresenius and 10 DaVita facilities) in the Bronx. We report our experience with caring for the ESKD population and patients who are hospitalized with AKI in the Bronx during the first 3 weeks of the local NYC COVID-19 pandemic. Strategies proposed for the prevention and management of COVID-19 transmission for patients with ESKD in the outpatient dialysis facilities have been dynamic. The American Society of Nephrology’s (ASN’s) Nephrologists Transforming …

Consolidation in dialysis Markets-Causes, consequences, and the role of policy.

The dialysis industry is one of the most highly concentrated healthcare sectors in the United States. Despite decades of growth in the number of patients with end-stage renal disease and in the size of dialysis markets, two large dialysis organizations currently care for more than two-thirds of the dialysis population. Economies of scale, bargaining leverage with suppliers and private insurers, barriers to entry, and government regulations have contributed to highly concentrated dialysis markets by conferring advantages to larger organizations. Consolidated dialysis markets have coincided with both positive and negative trends in healthcare costs and outcomes. Costs per patient receiving dialysis have grown at a slower rate than per capita Medicare costs, while access to dialysis care remains available across a wide socioeconomic range. Mortality rates have declined despite a sicker dialysis patient population. Yet, concerns remain about the cost and quality of dialysis care. Evidence suggests that chain ownership, for profit status, and less market competition may negatively impact health outcomes. Future policies and innovations involving kidney health may temporarily disrupt consolidation. However, if the underlying mechanisms that contributed to past consolidation persist, dialysis markets may remain highly concentrated over the long term.

Transforming Care for Patients and Providers: Perspective from Nonprofit Providers.

On July 10th, 2019, we watched the President sign Executive Order #13879, “Advancing American Kidney Health” (AAKH) ([1][1]). The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar stated: “Decades of paying for sickness and procedures in kidney care, rather than paying for

Barriers and Facilitators to Supportive Care for ESRD Dialysis Patients— A Social Worker’s Role

Despite efforts to increase supportive care for patients on dialysis, many barriers continue to exist. This study surveyed dialysis facilitystaff to examine the barriers and facilitators related to providing supportive care to patients on dialysis. This qualitative analysis revealed five barriers: 1) lack of integrated, holistic teams; 2) practitioner beliefs; 3) perceptions of social work competence; 4) time andworkload; and 5) lack of clarity regarding palliative care versus hospice and interpreting Medicare benefits. The analysis also revealed four facilitators related to providing supportive care: 1) integrated, holistic teams, including family involvement; 2) collaboration acrosscare teams; 3) communication and compassion; and 4) formal or regular mechanisms for the review of advance-care plans. Based onthe professional ethics code, social workers can play a role in bolstering their own teams’ capacity to integrate supportive-care practices. Further, using their advocacy skills, social workers can lead efforts to ensure that they and their colleagues have appropriate training and competence in supportive care. Finally, social workers, with their knowledge of community resources, can help foster innovative collaboration between dialysis organizations and palliative care and hospice organizations, in spite of current regulatory and financial barriers.

Does One Size Fit All With the Effects of Payment Reform? Dialysis Facility Payer Mix and Anemia Management Under the Expanded Medicare Prospective Payment System.

The effects of Medicare payment reforms aiming to improve the efficiency and quality of care by establishing greater financial accountability for providers may vary based on the extent and types of other coverage for their patient populations. Providers who are more resource constrained due to a less favorable payer mix face greater financial risks under such reforms. The impact of the expanded Medicare dialysis prospective payment system (PPS) on quality of care in independent dialysis facilities may vary based on the extent of higher payments from private insurers available for managing increased risks. To evaluate whether anemia outcomes for dialysis patients in independent facilities differ under the Medicare PPS based on facility payer mix. We examined changes in anemia outcomes for 122,641 Medicare dialysis patients in 921 independent facilities during 2009-2014 among facilities with differing levels of employer insurance (EI). We performed similar analyses of facilities affiliated with large dialysis organizations, whose practices were not expected to change based on facility-specific payer mix. Among independent facilities, similar modeled trends in low hemoglobin for all 3 facility EI groups in 2009-2010 were followed by increased low hemoglobin during 2012-2014 for facilities with lower EI (P<0.01). Post-PPS standardized blood transfusion ratios were 9% higher for lower EI versus higher EI independent facilities (P<0.01). Among large dialysis organizations facilities, there was no divergence in low hemoglobin by payer mix under the PPS. There is evidence of poorer quality of care for anemia under the PPS in independent facilities with lower versus higher EI. Provider responses to payment reform may vary based on attributes such as payer mix that could have implications for health disparities.

Association of Hospitalization and Mortality Among Patients Initiating Dialysis With Hemodialysis Facility Ownership and Acquisitions

Mergers and acquisitions among health care institutions are increasingly common, and dialysis markets have undergone several decades of mergers and acquisitions. To examine the outcomes of hemodialysis facility acquisitions independent of associated changes in market competition resulting from acquisitions. Cohort study using difference-in-differences (DID) analyses to compare changes in health outcomes over time among in-center US dialysis facilities that were acquired by a hemodialysis chain with facilities located nearby but not acquired. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models and negative binomial models with predicted marginal effects were developed to examine health outcomes, controlling for patient, facility, and geographic characteristics. All facility ownership types were examined together and stratified analyses were conducted of facilities that were independently owned and chain owned prior to acquisitions. The study was conducted from January 2001 to September 2015; 174 905 patients starting in-center dialysis in the 3 years before and following dialysis facility acquisitions were included. Data were analyzed from March 2017 to December 2018. Acquisition by a hemodialysis chain. Twelve-month hazard of death and hospital days per patient-year were the primary outcomes. Of the 174 905 patients included in the study, 79 705 were women (45.6%), 24 409 (14.0%) were of Hispanic ethnicity, 61 815 (35.3%) were black, 105 272 (60.2%) were white, and 1247 (0.7%) were Native American. Mean (SD) age was 65 (15) years. Before acquisitions, adjusted mortality and hospitalization rates were 10% (95% CI, -16% to -5%) and 2.9 days per patient-year (95% CI, -3.8 to -2.0) lower, respectively, at independently owned facilities that were acquired compared with those that were not acquired, while hospitalization rates were 0.7 days (95% CI, -1.2 to -2.0) lower at chain-owned facilities that were acquired compared with those that were not acquired. In stratified analyses of independently owned facilities, mortality decreases were smaller at acquired (-8.4%; 95% CI, -14% to -25%) vs nonacquired (-20.3%; 95% CI, -25.8% to -14.3%) facilities (DID P < .001). Similarly, hospitalization rates did not change at acquired facilities and decreased by 2.6 days per patient-year (95% CI, -3.6 to -1.7 days) at nonacquired facilities (DID P < .001). Acquisitions were not associated with changes in health outcomes at chain-owned facilities. Slower reductions in mortality and hospitalization rates at independently owned facilities contributed to significant differences in hospitalizations (-2.0 days; 95% CI, -2.5 to -1.6, at nonacquired vs 0.9 days; 95% CI, -1.3 to -0.5, at acquired facilities; DID, P < .001) across all ownership types but not mortality (DID, P = .28) with regard to acquisitions. Acquisition of independently owned dialysis facilities by larger dialysis organizations was associated with slower decreases in mortality and hospitalization rates, as nonacquired facilities appeared to experience more rapid improvements in outcomes over time.

Achieving dialysis safety: The critical role of higher-functioning teams.

The potential for harm from errors and adverse events in dialysis is significant. Achieving a culture of safety in dialysis to reduce the potential harm to patients has been challenging. Recently, improving dialysis safety has been highlighted by Nephrologists Transforming Dialysis Safety (NTDS), a national initiative to eliminate dialysis infections. Other aspects of dialysis safety are important, though less measurable. Approaching dialysis safety from a systematic thinking view helps us to understand the need for leadership and high-functioning teams to deliver safe, reliable care in dialysis facilities. Resilience in healthcare is embodied by strong teamwork-interdependent professionals working together with clarity of goals and communication. This paper reframes the role of dialysis facility medical directors as leaders of these high-functioning teams. Alignment between nephrologists and dialysis management is necessary for these teams to function. This will require nephrologists to embrace their leadership roles as medical directors and for dialysis facility management to provide adequate operational support. The accountability for dialysis safety is shared between the nephrologists and dialysis organizations; coleadership is required for safety culture and high-functioning dialysis teams to develop.

Calcimimetics and Bundled Reimbursement

Since 2011, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has provided reimbursement for renal dialysis services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries through a bundled payment system known as the Prospective Payment System. Medications that have no injectable equivalent, known as "oral-only medications," are currently excluded from the bundle and are paid separately through Medicare Part D. Thus, before the development of etelcalcetide, the first injectable calcimimetic, calcimimetics were reimbursed outside the bundle. Etelcalcetide's introduction and approval for use in Medicare triggered a transition payment for a minimum of 2 years that will eventually result in the incorporation of calcimimetics into the dialysis bundle. Consequently, providers may face incentives to reduce calcimimetic use when the transition period has expired. The complexity of bone-mineral management in conjunction with the paucity of evidence-based recommendations in this area makes it difficult to predict the impact of this transition. Because these medications are expensive, a poor transition could have financial ramifications for dialysis organizations and potentially patient health. To ensure that patients are not adversely affected, it is critical that Medicare incorporate these medications into the bundle carefully, with close monitoring of outcomes.

Leading a Dialysis Organization: Role and Responsibilities of the Chief Medical Officer (Nephrologist Leadership in a Dialysis Provider Organization).

The early beginning of the end-stage kidney disease program with the introduction of the Medicare Act of 1973 was marked by nephrologist entrepreneurs pioneering dialysis centers to deliver dialysis addressing the clinical needs of patients in a collaborative effort between physicians and nurses. As the number of patients grew, a system reliably providing dialysis treatments for many more patients than was ever anticipated was required to enable the demands of the increased scale. Solutions appropriate to respond to the growing needs of out-patient dialysis centers were developed combining emerging technology, clinical advances, and operational efficiency. With the consolidation of dialysis centers into large, midsize, and smaller dialysis providers a new landscape evolved, where nephrologists largely focused on their role as clinicians prescribing and overseeing the care of their patients, as well as taking on responsibility as medical directors of dialysis centers. Dialysis organizations eager to provide high-quality care to more than 500,000 patients in a program that was once anticipated to serve up to 35,000 patients answered to the need for physician leadership with the role of a chief medical officer. This role equates to that of the chief of medical staff function in hospital settings and so leads the quality improvement program, collaborates with the nephrologists, advances the clinical strategy and vision of the organization, and supports business decision-making. This article reviews the roles, responsibilities, and opportunities of the position as established in a midsize nonprofit dialysis provider.

Patient-Reported Experiences of Dialysis Care Within a National Pay-for-Performance System

Medicare's End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program incorporates measures of perceived value into reimbursement calculations. In 2016, patient experience became a clinical measure in the Quality Incentive Program scoring system. Dialysis facility performance in patient experience measures has not been studied at the national level to date. To examine associations among dialysis facility performance with patient experience measures and patient, facility, and geographic characteristics. In this cross-sectional analysis, patients from a national end-stage renal disease registry receiving in-center hemodialysis in the United States on December 31, 2014, were linked with dialysis facility scores on the In-Center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (ICH-CAHPS) survey. Of 4977 US dialysis facilities, 2939 (59.1%) reported ICH-CAHPS scores from April 8, 2015, through January 11, 2016. Multivariable linear regression models with geographic random effects were used to examine associations of facility ICH-CAHPS scores with patient, dialysis facility, and geographic characteristics and to identify the amount of total between-facility variation in patient experience scores explained by these categories. Data were analyzed from September 15, 2017, through June 1, 2018. Dialysis facility, geographic characteristic, and 10% change in patient characteristics. Dialysis facility ICH-CAHPS scores and the total between-facility variation explained by different categories of characteristics. Of the 2939 facilities included in the analysis, adjusted mean ICH-CAHPS scores were 2.6 percentage points (95% CI, 1.5-3.7) lower in for-profit facilities, 1.6 percentage points (95% CI, 0.9-2.2) lower in facilities owned by large dialysis organizations, and 2.3 percentage points (95% CI, 0.5-4.2) lower in free-standing facilities compared with their counterparts. More nurses per patient was associated with 0.2 percentage points (95% CI, 0.03-0.3) higher scores; a privately insured patient population was associated with 1.2 percentage points (95% CI, 0.2-2.2) higher scores. Facilities with higher proportions of black patients had 0.95 percentage points (95% CI, 0.78-1.12) lower scores; more Native American patients, 1.00 percentage point (95% CI, 0.39-1.60) lower facility scores. Geographic location and dialysis facility characteristics explained larger proportions of the overall between-facility variation in ICH-CAHPS scores than did patient characteristics. This study suggests that for-profit operation, free-standing status, and large dialysis organization designation were associated with less favorable patient-reported experiences of care. Patient experience scores varied geographically, and black and Native American populations reported less favorable experiences. The study findings suggest that perceived quality of care delivered in these settings are of concern, and that there may be opportunities for improved implementation of patient experience surveys as is highlighted.

Systems Thinking and Leadership: How Nephrologists Can Transform Dialysis Safety to Prevent Infections.

Infections are the second leading cause of death for patients with ESKD. Despite multiple efforts, nephrologists have been unable to prevent infections in dialysis facilities. The American Society of Nephrology and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have partnered to create Nephrologists Transforming Dialysis Safety to promote nephrologist leadership and engagement in efforts to "Target Zero" preventable dialysis infections. Because traditional approaches to infection control and prevention in dialysis facilities have had limited success, Nephrologists Transforming Dialysis Safety is reconceptualizing the problem in the context of the complexity of health care systems and organizational behavior. By identifying different parts of a problem and attempting to understand how these parts interact and produce a result, systems thinking has effectively tackled difficult problems in dynamic settings. The dialysis facility is composed of different physical and human elements that are interconnected and affect not only behavior but also, the existence of a culture of safety that promotes infection prevention. Because dialysis infections result from a complex system of interactions between caregivers, patients, dialysis organizations, and the environment, attempts to address infections by focusing on one element in isolation often fail. Creating a sense of urgency and commitment to eradicating dialysis infections requires leadership and motivational skills. These skills are not taught in the standard nephrology or medical director curriculum. Effective leadership by medical directors and engagement in infection prevention by nephrologists are required to create a culture of safety. It is imperative that nephrologists commit to leadership training and embrace their potential as change agents to prevent infections in dialysis facilities. This paper explores the systemic factors contributing to the ongoing dialysis infection crisis in the United States and the role of nephrologists in instilling a culture of safety in which infections can be anticipated and prevented.

Perspectives from the Kidney Health Initiative on Advancing Technologies to Facilitate Remote Monitoring of Patient Self-Care in RRT.

Telehealth and remote monitoring of a patient's health status has become more commonplace in the last decade and has been applied to conditions such as heart failure, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Conversely, uptake of these technologies to help engender and support home RRTs has lagged. Although studies have looked at the role of telehealth in RRT, they are small and single-centered, and both outcome and cost-effectiveness data are needed to inform future decision making. Furthermore, alignment of payer and government (federal and state) regulations with telehealth procedures is needed along with a better understanding of the viewpoints of the various stakeholders in this process (patients, caregivers, clinicians, payers, dialysis organizations, and government regulators). Despite these barriers, telehealth has great potential to increase the acceptance of home dialysis, and improve outcomes and patient satisfaction while potentially decreasing costs. The Kidney Health Initiative convened a multidisciplinary workgroup to examine the current state of telehealth use in home RRTs as well as outline potential benefits and drawbacks, impediments to implementation, and key unanswered questions.

Using Patient-Reported Measures in Dialysis Clinics.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including patient-reported outcomes (PROs), are one of two primary sources of data about patients on dialysis ([1][1]); the other is biologically based patient data. The Food and Drug Administration definition of a PRO is “any report coming from patients

Transforming Nephrology.

Transforming Nephrology.

The ESRD Quality Incentive Program-Can We Bridge the Chasm?

The ESRD Quality Incentive Program (QIP) is the first mandatory federal pay for performance program launched on January 1, 2012. The QIP is tied to the ESRD prospective payment system and mandated by the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008, which directed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to expand the payment bundle for renal dialysis services and legislated that payment be tied to quality measures. The QIP links 2% of the payment that a dialysis facility receives for Medicare patients on dialysis to the facility's performance on quality of care measures. Quality measures are evaluated annually for inclusion on the basis of importance, validity, and performance gap. Other quality assessment programs overlap with the QIP; all have substantial effects on provision of care as clinicians, patients, regulators, and dialysis organizations scramble to keep up with the frequent release of wide-ranging regulations. In this review, we provide an overview of quality assessment and quality measures, focusing on the ESRD QIP, its effect on care, and its potential future directions. We conclude that a patient-centered, individualized, and parsimonious approach to quality assessment needs to be maintained to allow the nephrology community to further bridge the quality chasm in dialysis care.

Changing Landscape for Peritoneal Dialysis: Optimizing Utilization

The future growth of peritoneal dialysis (PD) will be directly linked to the shift in US healthcare to a value-based payment model due to PD's lower yearly cost, early survival advantage over in-center hemodialysis, and improved quality of life for patients treating their kidney disease in the home. Under this model, nephrology practices will need an increased focus on managing the transition from chronic kidney disease to end-stage renal disease (ESRD), providing patient education with the aim of accomplishing modality selection and access placement ahead of dialysis initiation. Physicians must expand their knowledge base in home therapies and work toward increased technique survival through implementation of specific practice initiatives that highlight PD catheter placement success, preservation of residual renal function, consideration of incremental PD, and competence in urgent start PD. Avoidance of both early and late PD technique failures is also critical to PD program growth. Large dialysis organizations must continue to measure and improve quality metrics for PD, expand their focus beyond the sole provision of PD to holistic patient care, and initiate programs to reduce PD hospitalization rates and encourage physicians to consider the benefits of PD as an initial modality for appropriate patients. New and innovative strategies are needed to address the main reasons for PD technique failure, improve the connectivity of the patient in the home, leverage home biometric data to improve overall outcomes, and develop PD cycler devices that lower patient treatment burden and reduce both treatment fatigue and treatment-dependent complications.

Impact of the End Stage Renal Disease Prospective Payment System on the Use of Peritoneal Dialysis

IntroductionThe End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Prospective Payment System (PPS), implemented by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in January 2011, encouraged use of peritoneal dialysis (PD) through various financial incentives. Our goal was to determine whether PPS effectively increased PD use in incident dialysis patients.MethodsOur study used the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) to identify 430,927 adult patients who initiated dialysis between 2009 and 2012. The interrupted time series method was used to evaluate the association Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services of PPS with PD use at dialysis initiation. We further stratified by patient demographics, predialysis care, and facility chain and profit status.ResultsInterrupted time series analysis indicated PPS was associated with increased PD use in the 2-year period after PPS (change in slope = 0.04, P < 0.0001), although there was no immediate change in the level of PD use at the beginning of PPS (P = 0.512). Stratified analyses indicated PPS led to increased PD use across all age, race, and sex groups (P < 0.05) although marginally among females (P = 0.09). Notably, small dialysis organizations and nonprofit organizations appeared to increase use of PD faster compared to large dialysis organizations and for-profit units, respectively.DiscussionImplementation of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ESRD payment reform was associated with an increased use of PD in the 2 years after PPS. Our findings highlight the role of financial incentives in changing practice patterns to increase use of a dialysis modality considered to be both more cost-effective and empowering to ESRD patients. However, even after PPS, rates of PD use remain low among the dialysis population in the USA.

A survey of views and practice patterns of dialysis medical directors toward end-of-life decision making for patients with end-stage renal disease

Background: Patients with end-stage renal disease report infrequent end-of-life discussions, and nephrology trainees report feeling unprepared for end-of-life decision making, but the views of dialysis medical directors have not been studied. Aim: Our objective is to understand dialysis medical directors’ views and practice patterns on end-of-life decision making for patients with ESRD. Design: We administered questionnaires to dialysis medical directors during medical director meetings of three different dialysis organizations in 2013. Survey questions corresponded to recommendations from the Renal Physicians Association clinical practice guidelines on initiation and withdrawal of dialysis. Setting/participants: There were 121 medical director respondents from 28 states. Results: The majority of respondents felt “very prepared” (66%) or “somewhat prepared” (29%) to participate in end-of-life decisions and most (80%) endorsed a model of shared decision making. If asked to do so, 70% of the respondents provided prognostic information “often” or “nearly always.” For patients with a poor prognosis, 36% of respondents would offer a time-limited trial of dialysis “often” or “nearly always”, while 56% of respondents would suggest withdrawal from dialysis “often” or “nearly always” for those with a poor prognosis currently receiving dialysis therapy. Patient resistance and fear of taking away hope were the most commonly cited barriers to end-of-life discussions. Conclusion: Views and reported practice patterns of medical directors are consistent with clinical practice guidelines for end-of-life decision making for patients with end-stage renal disease but inconsistent with patient perceptions.

Anemia management practice patterns in small dialysis organizations following implementation of the prospective payment system.

The impact of the United States Prospective Payment System (PPS) "bundle payment system" on anemia management within small dialysis organizations (SDOs) was studied to evaluate the financia burden on SDOs. Facilities enrolled in the original study on SDOs were grouped into three hemoglobin (Hb) categories by subject-months: > 25% of subjectmonths with Hb < 10 g/dL (sub-10); > 25% of subject-months with Hb > 12 g/dL (super-12); remaining facilities (10 - 12 group). Subjectlevel data aggregated to facility level for Hb concentration, intravenous (IV) epoetin ± (EA) dose per administration, dose titration, and EA administration frequency during the baseline and follow-up periods were described. Baseline demographic characteristics were imbalanced between the sub-10 (n = 7) and super-12 facilities (n = 5). Mean (SD) Hb concentrations were similar for sub-10 (11.1 (3.0) g/dL) and super-12 (11.6 (2.2) g/dL) facilities during the baseline period, but differed during the follow-up period (10.4 (2.7) vs. 11.4 (2.3) g/dL). The median (Q1, Q3) EA IV dose per administration during follow-up was 3,726 (3,467, 3,961) and 5,712 (4,816, 7,324) units in the sub-10 and super-12 facilities, respectively. A small trend toward upward titration was seen. Results suggest a difference in anemia management between sub-10 and super-12 facilities during the first year of PPS implementation. Future analyses evaluating patterns of reimbursement and shifts in clinical practice guidelines are warranted globally.