PUK20 Reimbursement Landscape in Europe As Hurdle or Accelerator of HOME Hemodialysis in COVID-19 Times

Abstract

canal inhibitors prescription differences substist at T+1 (p=0,0151), as well as insulin (p=0,0025), and metformin (p=0,0318). At T+2, the only difference is the prescription of amlodipin (p=0,0003). In the cohort, prescription of opioids (p=0,002), glinids (p=0,0037), iron (p=0,028), acetaminophen(p=0,0011) are increasing, while metformin, beta-blockers (p=0,0009), diuretic (p , 0,0001) and statins (p=0,029) are decreasing. These results are confirmed in the sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Even unknowingly practitioners are differentiating prescription between the high risk group and the low risk group. Such differences indicate the possibility to personalize patient follow-up with no interference on quality of care.

Main Barriers to the Introduction of a Home Haemodialysis Programme in Poland: A Review of the Challenges for Implementation and Criteria for a Successful Programme

“…In addition to the reimbursement challenges previously discussed for Poland, there are also additional considerations. From a payer perspective, when HHD reimbursement is established, a low level of reimbursement, reimbursement schemes which are not sufficiently flexible to cover the costs of more frequent HHD prescriptions [ 54 , 69 , 70 ], and hidden costs that exist for HHD which are not reflected in the reimbursement rate can also inhibit uptake [ 71 ]. With regard to hidden costs, there is poor clarity around the aggregated costs for single items that are required to produce dialysis equipment for both PD and HHD and the labour costs involved in delivering HHD [ 31 ].…”