Considering the Effects of a Recent US Supreme Court's Ruling on Dialysis Care Costs

被引:0
|
作者
Erickson, Kevin F. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Eck, Chase [3 ,4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Baylor Coll Med, Sect Nephrol, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[2] Rice Univ, Baker Inst Publ Policy, Houston, TX 77005 USA
[3] Baylor Coll Med, Ctr Innovat Qual Effectiveness & Safety, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[4] Michael E DeBakey VA Med Ctr, Houston, TX USA
[5] Baylor Coll Med, Dept Med, Sect Hlth Serv Res, Houston, TX USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
D O I
10.1016/j.clinthera.2023.01.015
中图分类号
R9 [药学];
学科分类号
1007 ;
摘要
Dialysis care in the United States is expensive and is mostly paid for by Medicare. To reduce the cost of providing dialysis services, the federal government has relied on a law that designates Medicare as a secondary payer in the first 30 months of dialysis. During this period, private health insurers are the primary payer and pay for the majority of dialysis-related costs. Private health insurers often pay substantially higher prices for dialysis care than does Medicare, possibly due to highly concentrated dialysis-provider markets. A perspective by Boumil and Curfmin in this journal discusses how a recent ruling by the US Supreme Court may limit Medicare's role as a secondary payer, potentially altering the economic relationship between dialysis providers and private insurers. Boumil and Curfmin discuss how these changes may ultimately promote competition in dialysis-provider markets and lower dialysis-related costs paid by private health insurers. We compare this viewpoint to responses and concerns voiced by other stakeholders in the kidney-care community and outline additional ways in which the Supreme Court's ruling may affect competition in dialysis markets and prices paid for dialysis by private insurers. (c) 2023 Elsevier Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:272 / 276
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] The US Supreme Court's ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
    Steinbrook, Robert
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2012, 344
  • [2] Implications of recent US Supreme Court IP ruling for nanomedicine patents
    Kim, Kelly Y.
    [J]. NANOMEDICINE, 2008, 3 (02) : 141 - 143
  • [3] The US Supreme Court and Future of Financing Dialysis Care
    Worsley, Melandrea L.
    Erickson, Kevin F.
    [J]. CLINICAL JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY, 2023, 18 (02): : 273 - 275
  • [4] Effects of a US Supreme Court ruling to restrict abortion rights
    Clark, Chelsey S.
    Paluck, Elizabeth Levy
    Westwood, Sean J.
    Sen, Maya
    Malhotra, Neil
    Jessee, Stephen
    [J]. NATURE HUMAN BEHAVIOUR, 2024, 8 (01) : 63 - 71
  • [5] Effects of a US Supreme Court ruling to restrict abortion rights
    Chelsey S. Clark
    Elizabeth Levy Paluck
    Sean J. Westwood
    Maya Sen
    Neil Malhotra
    Stephen Jessee
    [J]. Nature Human Behaviour, 2024, 8 : 63 - 71
  • [6] US Supreme Court makes historic health ruling
    Jaffe, Susan
    [J]. LANCET, 2012, 380 (9836): : 14 - 14
  • [7] US Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action impacts oncology
    Das, Manjulika
    [J]. LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2023, 24 (08): : 843 - 843
  • [8] The Impact of the Recent Supreme Court Ruling on the Dermatology Recruitment Pipeline
    Flamm, Alexandra
    Sharma, Timmie R.
    Nambudiri, Vinod E.
    [J]. CUTIS, 2024, 113 (06): : 243 - 245
  • [9] Preserving diversity in healthcare after the US Supreme Court's affirmative action ruling
    Yang, Y. Tony
    Sudarshan, Sawali
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2023, 382
  • [10] US court ruling spells uncertainty and higher costs
    不详
    [J]. TCE, 2004, (753): : 16 - 16