Skip to main content
Subscribe
  • Sign Up Free
  • Login
  • Subscribe
  • News
    • Current News
    • Providers
    • Insurance
    • Government
    • Finance
    • Technology
    • Safety & Quality
    • Digital Health
    • Transformation
    • ESG
    • People
    • Regional News
    • Digital Edition (Web Version)
    • Patients
    • Operations
    • Care Delivery
    • Payment
    • Midwest
    • Northeast
    • South
    • West
  • Opinion
    • Bold Moves
    • Breaking Bias
    • Commentaries
    • Letters
    • Vital Signs Blog
    • From the Editor
  • Events & Awards
    • Awards
    • Conferences
    • Galas
    • Virtual Briefings
    • Webinars
    • Nominate/Eligibility
    • 100 Most Influential People
    • 50 Most Influential Clinical Executives
    • Best Places to Work in Healthcare
    • Excellence in Governance
    • Health Care Hall of Fame
    • Healthcare Marketing Impact Awards
    • Top 25 Emerging Leaders
    • Top Innovators
    • Diversity in Healthcare
      • - Luminaries
      • - Top 25 Diversity Leaders
      • - Leaders to Watch
    • Women in Healthcare
      • - Luminaries
      • - Top 25 Women Leaders
      • - Women to Watch
    • Digital Health Transformation Summit
    • ESG: The Implementation Imperative Summit
    • Leadership Symposium
    • Social Determinants of Health Symposium
    • Women Leaders in Healthcare Conference
    • Best Places to Work Awards Gala
    • Health Care Hall of Fame Gala
    • Top 25 Diversity Leaders Gala
    • Top 25 Women Leaders Gala
    • - Hospital of the Future
    • - Value Based Care
    • - Hospital at Home
    • - Workplace of the Future
    • - Digital Health
    • - Future of Staffing
    • - Hospital of the Future (Fall)
  • Multimedia
    • Podcast - Beyond the Byline
    • Sponsored Podcast - Healthcare Insider
    • Video Series - The Check Up
    • Sponsored Video Series - One on One
  • Data Center
    • Data Center Home
    • Hospital Financials
    • Staffing & Compensation
    • Quality & Safety
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Data Archive
    • Resource Guide: By the Numbers
    • Surveys
    • Data Points
  • Newsletters
  • MORE+
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Media Kit
    • Jobs
    • People on the Move
    • Reprints & Licensing
MENU
Breadcrumb
  1. Home
  2. Safety & Quality
January 31, 2015 12:00 AM

CMS dialysis clinic ratings won't help patients, critics say

Sabriya Rice
  • Tweet
  • Share
  • Share
  • Email
  • More
    Reprints Print
    The stars, applied to 5,580U.S. kidney-care centers,are meant to help patients determine quality of care.But dialysis groups havesaid the ratings based ona bell curve do not accurately reflect the quality of care.

    Dialysis patient Roger Anderson, 68, a retired welder from Black River Falls, Wis., had to drive more than 50 miles three times a week for six months to get to his life-or-death dialysis treatments.

    Those logistics became a major challenge five years ago when his kidneys failed just after he had bypass surgery. Family members often stepped in to drive him on the hourlong trek. Other times, he relied on volunteers.

    So he was relieved when a spot opened up at a nearby facility and his drive was reduced to two blocks. And fortunately for Anderson, both locations were part of La Crosse, Wis.-based Gundersen Health System, whose six end-stage renal disease facilities all received five stars, the highest possible designation on a new CMS rating system.

    Anderson wasn't familiar with the CMS' newly posted ratings, but now that he knows, he said they might have made a difference if his local facility was poorly rated. One star means “there's questions about what kind of service they give,” he said. “I could possibly see switching out of concern.”

    The ultimate test of the star ratings, which became public Jan. 22, will be the response from patients like Anderson. Already, critics say the system is too complicated for the average consumer because of how ratings are assigned. And in areas with few choices of facilities, they may be meaningless since consumers have no easily accessible alternatives.

    The stars, applied to 5,580 U.S. kidney-care centers, are meant to help patients determine quality of care. But dialysis groups say the ratings, which are based on a bell curve, do not accurately reflect the quality of care. Even centers achieving five stars have been reluctant to celebrate the results.

    “We're not out there shouting it from the rooftops,” said Bridget Pfaff, administrative director for infection control, nephrology and renal care at Gundersen. The time and physical demands of treatment often require patients to choose whichever is closest. “I'm not certain a star rating is really going to impact their choice. In many communities, there is not much choice.”

    MH Takeaways

    CMS rating program for dialysis centers get one-star from critics, who say the tool may confuse people more than it helps them pick a treatment location.

    There are about 450,000 patients on hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis in the U.S., according to the U.S. Renal Data System. In 2012, Medicare spent about $58 billion on patients with chronic kidney disease. As part of a broader initiative to boost transparency and help beneficiaries compare quality, the CMS rolled out the ratings to the Dialysis Facility Compare website.

    The CMS looks at nine publicly reported quality measures—such as standardized ratios for transfusions, mortality and hospitalizations. They also reflect percentages for KtV values, which show whether enough waste was removed from the patient's blood during dialysis, and how many adult dialysis patients have high calcium levels.

    The ratings are based on a tiered system in which those in the top and bottom deciles received five stars (“much above average quality) or one star (“much below average quality”), respectively. The second tier, representing 20% of clinics, received four stars; the middle tier, for the next 40%, got three stars; and the next 20% got two stars.

    Kidney-care groups lashed out, saying the bell curve distorts actual performance. Regions with the most one-star ratings included the Florida network; the network servicing Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio; and the network for the District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia.

    “It's not helpful to consumers if you can't find a differentiation of facilities within a reasonable distance from where you live,” said Jackson Williams, director of government affairs for the not-for profit Dialysis Patient Citizens. “The last thing you want to do is discourage people from complying, or to create a lack of confidence in their clinicians' advice,” he said.

    The CMS told Modern Healthcare that it has updated language on the Dialysis Facility Compare website to note that a “one- or two-star rating does not mean that you will receive poor care.” It simply indicates that measured outcomes are below average compared to other facilities. There are many factors patients should weigh when making a selection, the CMS said.

    But generally, consumers interpret one star as bad and five stars as good, and patients may not sift through the CMS disclaimers. “The whole point of using a star rating is that people have an understanding of what it means,” Williams said. “When you depart from that, it becomes complicated.”

    Follow Sabriya Rice on Twitter: @sabriyarice

    Letter
    to the
    Editor

    Send us a letter

    Have an opinion about this story? Click here to submit a Letter to the Editor, and we may publish it in print.

    Recommended for You
    Cleveland-clinic-for web_i.jpg
    Increase in hospital police forces brings criticisms, warnings
    home-infusion
    Rise in home infusion therapy leads to questions on safety, cost
    Most Popular
    1
    More healthcare organizations at risk of credit default, Moody's says
    2
    Centene fills out senior executive team with new president, COO
    3
    SCAN, CareOregon plan to merge into the HealthRight Group
    4
    Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan unveils big push that lets physicians take on risk, reap rewards
    5
    Bright Health weighs reverse stock split as delisting looms
    Sponsored Content
    Get Newsletters

    Sign up for enewsletters and alerts to receive breaking news and in-depth coverage of healthcare events and trends, as they happen, right to your inbox.

    Subscribe Today
    MH Magazine Cover

    MH magazine offers content that sheds light on healthcare leaders’ complex choices and touch points—from strategy, governance, leadership development and finance to operations, clinical care, and marketing.

    Subscribe
    Connect with Us
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • RSS

    Our Mission

    Modern Healthcare empowers industry leaders to succeed by providing unbiased reporting of the news, insights, analysis and data.

    Contact Us

    (877) 812-1581

    Email us

     

    Resources
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise with Us
    • Ad Choices Ad Choices
    • Sitemap
    Editorial Dept
    • Submission Guidelines
    • Code of Ethics
    • Awards
    • About Us
    Legal
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Privacy Request
    Modern Healthcare
    Copyright © 1996-2023. Crain Communications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
    • News
      • Current News
      • Providers
      • Insurance
      • Government
      • Finance
      • Technology
      • Safety & Quality
      • Digital Health
      • Transformation
        • Patients
        • Operations
        • Care Delivery
        • Payment
      • ESG
      • People
      • Regional News
        • Midwest
        • Northeast
        • South
        • West
      • Digital Edition (Web Version)
    • Opinion
      • Bold Moves
      • Breaking Bias
      • Commentaries
      • Letters
      • Vital Signs Blog
      • From the Editor
    • Events & Awards
      • Awards
        • Nominate/Eligibility
        • 100 Most Influential People
        • 50 Most Influential Clinical Executives
        • Best Places to Work in Healthcare
        • Excellence in Governance
        • Health Care Hall of Fame
        • Healthcare Marketing Impact Awards
        • Top 25 Emerging Leaders
        • Top Innovators
        • Diversity in Healthcare
          • - Luminaries
          • - Top 25 Diversity Leaders
          • - Leaders to Watch
        • Women in Healthcare
          • - Luminaries
          • - Top 25 Women Leaders
          • - Women to Watch
      • Conferences
        • Digital Health Transformation Summit
        • ESG: The Implementation Imperative Summit
        • Leadership Symposium
        • Social Determinants of Health Symposium
        • Women Leaders in Healthcare Conference
      • Galas
        • Best Places to Work Awards Gala
        • Health Care Hall of Fame Gala
        • Top 25 Diversity Leaders Gala
        • Top 25 Women Leaders Gala
      • Virtual Briefings
        • - Hospital of the Future
        • - Value Based Care
        • - Hospital at Home
        • - Workplace of the Future
        • - Digital Health
        • - Future of Staffing
        • - Hospital of the Future (Fall)
      • Webinars
    • Multimedia
      • Podcast - Beyond the Byline
      • Sponsored Podcast - Healthcare Insider
      • Video Series - The Check Up
      • Sponsored Video Series - One on One
    • Data Center
      • Data Center Home
      • Hospital Financials
      • Staffing & Compensation
      • Quality & Safety
      • Mergers & Acquisitions
      • Data Archive
      • Resource Guide: By the Numbers
      • Surveys
      • Data Points
    • Newsletters
    • MORE+
      • Contact Us
      • Advertise
      • Media Kit
      • Jobs
      • People on the Move
      • Reprints & Licensing