Eliminating Method II Could Hurt Home Dialysis

This is more than an economic discussion this is also a discussion about patient care and quality of life.   I would like to share excerpts from letters sent in response to these proposed changes from programs where we service home patients.  

This is from a small provider, one of many:            

“My company is a small provider of both in-center and home dialysis. We serve in some of our units a very rural population who would not have access to dialysis if we were not there. Because some of these people live a long distance from the unit, home dialysis is very important to their survival. The proposal to eliminate Method II in its current form would have a negative impact on my home patients and programs. My patients use an independent Method II supply company who unlike a facility is able to contract with multiple manufacturers’ and specialty vendors without the contractual limitations seen in the dialysis provider setting. 

“Our ability to work with an independent Method II Supply company who takes on the costs and responsibility of furnishing home supplies and equipment is vital to our facilities. This reduction in facility costs associated with home modalities has a huge impact in all areas of our dialysis programs, from modality offerings, program expansion and the ability to keep up with technological advances in the industry.”  

And this is from a pediatric provider, one of many:  

“As a pediatric facility with special needs for our patients, higher costs associated with the treatment of our patients and fewer product options available in our specific segment of the ESRD population, it is imperative that Method II remain a viable option to allow us to maintain our access to the unique products required in the care of our patients.  

“The concern for the pediatric patient is to keep the children home, in school, away from the exposures to hospital acquired infections, and engaged in a more normal schedule for peer interactions necessary for adequate development of all children regardless of disease.” 

This proposed elimination of Method II would also adversely impact the beneficiaries we service within the military and VA segment. In response to a congressional inquiry from Congressman Mark Kirk, 10th District of Illinois and co-chair of the Kidney Caucus Committee, Walter Reed Army Medical Center stated:  

“The impact on the military if Method II reimbursement were to be curtailed would be significant.  

“Method II has been the means of providing seamless home care for our affected patients while allowing us (WRAMC) to follow these patients and provide their ancillary care. It allows them (the patients) to travel if their sponsor is reassigned elsewhere and they can transition into the civilian community without difficulty allowing us to quickly transfer patients if our staff is required to support our soldiers.”