Back to Journals » ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research » Volume 16
Privatization and Oligopolies of the Renal Replacement Therapy Sector on Contemporary Capitalism: A Systematic Review and the Brazilian Scenario
Authors Samaan F , Mendes Á, Carnut L
Received 28 February 2024
Accepted for publication 3 May 2024
Published 13 May 2024 Volume 2024:16 Pages 417—435
DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S464120
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Xing Lin Feng
Farid Samaan,1,2,* Áquilas Mendes,3,4,* Leonardo Carnut5,*
1Planning and Evaluation Group, São Paulo State Health Department, São Paulo, SP, Brazil; 2Research Division, Dante Pazzanese Cardiology Institute, São Paulo, SP, Brazil; 3Public Health School, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil; 4Postgraduate Program, Pontifícia Universidade Católica, São Paulo, SP, Brazil; 5Center for the Development of Higher Education in Health, Federal University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
*These authors contributed equally to this work
Correspondence: Farid Samaan, Planning and Evaluation Group, São Paulo State Health Department, Av. Dr. Arnaldo, 351 - 5th Floor, Room 501, São Paulo, SP, 01246-903, Brazil, Tel +55 11 3066-8165, Email [email protected]
Abstract: Worldwide the assistance on renal replacement therapy (RRT) is carried out mainly by private for-profit services and in a market with increase in mergers and acquisitions. The aim of this study was to conduct an integrative systematic review on privatization and oligopolies in the RRT sector in the context of contemporary capitalism. The inclusion criteria were scientific articles without language restrictions and that addressed the themes of oligopoly or privatization of RRT market. Studies published before 1990 were excluded. The exploratory search for publications was carried out on February 13, 2024 on the Virtual Health Library Regional Portal (VHL). Using the step-by-step of PRISMA flowchart, 34 articles were retrieved, of which 31 addressed the RRT sector in the United States and 26 compared for-profit dialysis units or those belonging to large organizations with non-profit or public ones. The main effects of privatization and oligopolies, evaluated by the studies, were: mortality, hospitalization, use of peritoneal dialysis and registration for kidney transplantation. When considering these outcomes, 19 (73%) articles showed worse results in private units or those belonging to large organizations, six (23%) studies were in favor of privatization or oligopolies and one study was neutral (4%). In summary, most of the articles included in this systematic review showed deleterious effects of oligopolization and privatization of the RRT sector on the patients served. Possible explanations for this result could be the presence of conflicts of interest in the RRT sector and the lack of incentive to implement the chronic kidney disease care line. The predominance of articles from a single nation may suggest that few countries have transparent mechanisms to monitor the quality of care and outcomes of patients on chronic dialysis.
Keywords: renal dialysis, chronic kidney failure, health facility merger, private sector, capitalism, review
Introduction
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a worldwide public health problem. Its prevalence has increased globally, mainly due to the ageing of the population and the obesity epidemic. These factors lead to an increase in the prevalence of hypertension and diabetes, which are the main causes of CKD.1 As a consequence of the increase in the prevalence of CKD, the estimated number of people currently receiving renal replacement therapy (RRT) worldwide has doubled in the last 20 years, also driven by the increase in the supply of this treatment.2
CKD is divided into five stages of increasing severity. It is agreed to call the treatment for patients with stages 1–4 of CKD “medication-based”, since RRT is not indicated and measures to delay the disease progression must be adopted. In stage 5 of CKD, kidney function is so impaired that the patient requires some form of renal function replacement. Therefore, RRT is a life-sustaining treatment for patients with the most advanced stage of CKD. The RRT methods are hemodialysis (HD), peritoneal dialysis (PD) and kidney transplantation.3 Among these three methods, transplantation is recognized as being the one associated with better quality of life and greater patient survival.4 Despite this, more than 70% of people with kidney failure are on HD or PD worldwide, mainly due to the unavailability of organs for everyone, and to a lesser extent, due to contraindications for kidney transplantation.5
In nations where RRT is funded with public resources or health insurance, there has naturally been a significant increase in the number of RRT services to meet the increase in demand in recent decades.6 In these places, around 0.1% of people on RRT consume 5–7% of their country’s entire healthcare budget.7,8 Although RRT assistance can be carried out by public or non-profit providers, a significant volume of these financial resources has been captured by for-profit providers.9
In Brazil, RRT is funded by the Unified Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde [SUS]) for more than 85% of patients, who undergo treatment in health units, whose legal nature is 55% private for-profit.10,11 Factors that contribute to maximizing the profit of the private RRT sector in Brazil are also highlighted, namely, the form of remuneration for the production of services, with no limit on the volume of procedures and from a specific financing source, named Strategic Actions and Compensation Fund.12
In addition to the predominance of for-profit RRT services, the RRT market (and the healthcare market in general) has seen an increase in the number of mergers and acquisitions.13 In each country, the magnitude of this phenomenon is related to the permissiveness of health systems to for-profit companies and the entry of foreign capital.14 Studies suggest that the concentration of ownership of health services, as well as an increase in the percentage of for-profit services, could have a negative impact on patient outcomes.15,16
The process of acquiring RRT units by large business conglomerates is well established in the United States (USA), where more than 70% of dialysis units are owned by two multinational companies.17 In Brazil, this movement began in the last decade and nowadays a small number of companies control the production of RRT inputs and equipment and own services that provide direct assistance to patients.14 In addition to gaining scale in their operations, the large dialysis organizations (LDO) have more power to determine prices and exert pressure for adjustments vis-à-vis the public sector, in the case of RRT. The market dominance of these companies could become even greater in the Brazilian scenario, since more than 70% of dialysis services are under municipal management, which is the most fragile entity in terms of financial resources and negotiating power with the private sector.11
The impact of privatization and oligopolization in the RRT sector has been described over the last three decades. Studies have indicated that these phenomena, when associated with payment-for-production models, may be associated with lower chance of referral for transplantation by dialysis services, higher hospitalization rates and higher mortality.18–20 In this context, the aim of this study was to conduct an integrative systematic review on privatization and oligopolies in the RRT sector in the context of contemporary capitalism.
Materials and Methods
The present study used the integrative review methodology for the systematic collection of data.21 This methodology consists of constructing a broad analysis of the literature, which was based on the following research question:
What does the scientific literature present about the relationship between the renal replacement therapy sector and the phenomena of privatization and oligopolies in contemporary capitalism?
Data Source and Search Strategy
Based on the research question, the design of this review was structured in three stages: identification of the descriptors, exploratory search of the material in the literature and systematic reading of the titles, abstracts and full texts of the publications.
Identifying Descriptors
When using the acronym Phenomena-Population-Context, the following key items were identified: renal replacement therapy, oligopolies and contemporary capitalism, respectively. Thus, the descriptors were then identified, using the controlled vocabulary of terms from the electronic portal Health Sciences Descriptors – DeCS.22 The descriptors identified were: “renal dialysis”, “chronic kidney failure”, “renal insufficiency, chronic” and “renal replacement therapy” (phenomena pole); “value-based purchasing”, “associated health institutions”, “health facility merger”, “privatization”, “ownership” and “private sector” (population pole), and “capitalism” (context pole).
Exploratory Search for Material in the Literature
The exploratory search for publications was carried out on February 13, 2024 on the Virtual Health Library Regional Portal (VHL). The VHL Portal was chosen because it is a large database of bibliographical data on health, produced by networks such as LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature) and Medline and by open educational publications, scientific events and internet sites.
Firstly, the Boolean operator “OR” was used between the descriptors of each pole of this review and, later, the operator “AND” was used between the poles. The number of publications in each pole was: 203,798 (phenomena), 29,969 (population) and 1062 (context). Next, a combined search for the three poles was carried out, using the following syntax: (mh:((mh:(“Renal Replacement Therapy”)) OR (mh:(“Renal Dialysis”)) OR (mh:(“Chronic Kidney Failure”)) OR (mh:(“Renal Insufficiency, Chronic”)))) AND (mh:((mh:(“Privatization”)) OR (mh:(“Private Sector”)) OR (mh:(“Health Facility Merger”)) OR (mh:(“Ownership”)) OR (mh:(“Associated Health Institutions”)) OR (mh:(“Value-Based Purchasing”)))) AND (mh:(mh:(“capitalism”))). Due to the fact that this syntax did not result in any publications, we excluded the “capitalism” pole, since it was the pole with the lowest recovery of publications in an isolated way.
Therefore, the final syntax used in this review was: (mh:((mh:(“Renal Replacement Therapy”))) OR (mh:(“Renal Dialysis”)) OR (mh:(“Chronic Kidney Failure”)) OR (mh:(“Renal Insufficiency, Chronic”)))) AND (mh:((mh:(“Privatization”)) OR (mh:(“Private Sector”)) OR (mh:(“Health Facility Merger”)) OR (mh:(“Ownership”)) OR (mh:(“Associated Health Institutions”)) OR (mh:(“Value-Based Purchasing”)))). The syntax resulted in 162 publications (Table 1).
![]() |
Table 1 Exploratory Search for Publications Carried Out on February 13, 2024 |
Systematized Reading of Titles and Abstracts of Publications
For the systematic search for publications, the four general stages of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) flowchart were carried out (Figure 1).23 The inclusion criteria were scientific articles without language restrictions and that addressed the themes of oligopoly or privatization of RRT market. Studies published before 1990 were excluded. Firstly, of the 162 publications identified by the final syntax, 3 repeated studies were excluded, obtaining a total of 159 publications. From then on, publications that did not refer to scientific articles were removed. Therefore, the following were excluded: a) reports (40); b) reviews (30), c) editorials (10) and d) guideline (1). This process corresponded to a total of 81 publications removed. Thus, 78 scientific articles remained. Furthermore, in the tracking stage, the titles of the articles were read, based on the inclusion criteria referring to studies that addressed: a) human beings; b) the RRT sector; c) oligopolization and/or privatization; and, d) contemporary capitalism, considering the period after 1990. In this way, 6 articles were excluded, resulting in 72.
![]() |
Figure 1 Flowchart of the selection process of articles included in the review. Abbreviation: VHL, Virtual Health Library. |
The abstracts of the articles were then read. At this stage, the inclusion criteria were the same as those used when reading the titles. Thus, 30 articles were removed and, subsequently, 5 were removed because they were prior to the 1990s. Therefore, 37 articles remained for reading the full text. Of these, 3 articles were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria, thus leaving 34 articles included in this review.
Results
The main characteristics of the articles included in this review are described in Table 2. As for the country of origin, 91% of the studies addressed the RRT sector in the USA (31) and the others in Italy (1), Romania (1) and Taiwan (1). Six articles (18%) addressed only the oligopolization phenomenon, 16 (47%) only privatization and 12 articles (35%) both phenomena. As for the study design, 26 studies (76%) were comparative, that is, they used at least two groups of dialysis units to evaluate the impact of one or both phenomena (oligopolization and privatization) on the patients assisted. Five articles (15%) were descriptive, there were two systematic reviews with meta-analysis (6%) and one cross-sectional study based on a questionnaire (3%). The effects of the privatization and oligopoly processes evaluated by the articles were: mortality of patients treated (15 studies), use of high-cost reimbursable medications (8 studies), hospitalization rate (6 studies), referral for kidney transplantation (6 studies), quality of care (5 studies), costs of RRT (4 studies), use of PD (3 studies), efficiency (2 studies) and market competition (2 studies).
![]() |
Table 2 Characteristics of Studies Included in the Systematic Review |
The PRISMA 2020 checklist and the PRISMA checklist for abstracts are completed in Supplementary Material. The methods and approaches to privatization and oligopolies of the studies included in this review are summarized in Table 3. Based on the methodology used, the articles were classified into comparative studies, descriptive studies, systematic reviews and questionnaire-based studies.
![]() |
Table 3 Results of the Articles Included in the Review According to Author, Year of Publication, Methods and Approaches to Privatization and Oligopolies |
Comparative Studies
When considering the effect of consolidation and/or privatization of the RRT sector, among the 26 comparative studies, 19 (73%) were in favor of non-profit dialysis facilities or independent ones, that is, these units showed better results for patients than private centers or those belonging to dialysis organizations.20,24,25,27,30,32–35,38,40,43,45,46,51–53,55 Independent dialysis facilities are those whose owner has only one dialysis unit. Six studies (23%) were favorable to for-profit dialysis facilities or dialysis organizations37,39,42,44,48,54 and one study (4%) was neutral.31
Descriptive Studies
Erickson et al28 showed that there was an 8% reduction in the number of independent dialysis facilities in the 2000s. Furthermore, due to the increase in the population on RRT and, consequently, the number of dialysis facilities, the number of providers per geographic area evaluated increased from 6.9 to 7.6 in the same period.28 A study by Wilson29 showed that the dominance of the North American RRT market by two multinational companies increased from 33% to 74% between 1990 and 2015. Posniak et al41 showed that 60% of dialysis facilities acquisitions in the USA, between 1997 and 2003, were carried out by LDO (those that own >1000 dialysis facilities each) and 40%, by medium-sized ones (ownership of 10–1000 dialysis facilities) or small organizations (<10 dialysis facilities).41 Furthermore, the study showed that the factors predicting the acquisition of dialysis facilities were the larger size of the local market, higher average serum hematocrit of patients and higher cost per HD session.
Thamer et al45 analyzed the factors related to the subcutaneous use of erythropoietin (versus intravenous use) between 1990 and 2000, observing that for-profit dialysis facilities used this route of administration 43% less compared to non-profit facilities. Similarly, units belonging to LDO used 38% less subcutaneous erythropoietin than independent facilities. Ozgen et al,50 when evaluating factors related to the efficiency of dialysis facilities in the USA in 1997, found that for-profit units had lower expenditure on human resources, operating with smaller numbers of professionals and qualified professionals per patient, compared with non-profit units, and thus achieved greater efficiency.
Systematic Reviews
This integrative review included two systematic reviews. Both aimed to evaluate the effect of the profit status of dialysis facilities on patient mortality. In the first, Devereaux et al49 analyzed the results of eight articles published between 1984 and 2000, finding, in the meta-analysis carried out, that mortality in for-profit dialysis facilities was 8% higher than in non-profit ones (RR=1.08, 95% CI=1.04 to 1.13). Dickman et al,26 in turn, by evaluating nine articles between 2011 and 2019, showed a similar result, that is, a 7% increase in the risk of death of patients in for-profit versus non-profit dialysis facilities (RR=1.07, CI95%=1.04 to 1.11).
Questionnaire-Based Survey
Balhara et al36 aimed to evaluate the approach to kidney transplantation carried out by physicians from HD centers in the USA in 2010. Compared to professionals from non-profit facilities, those from for-profit facilities were 11% less likely to spend more of 20 minutes talking to their patients about kidney transplants, 43% less chance of involving family members in this conversation, and 55% less chance of considering patients eligible for the procedure. In the same study, the lack of specific reimbursement to talk to patients about kidney transplantation was mentioned as one of the barriers to the transplantation process by 30% of physicians in for-profit units versus 18% of those in non-profit facilities.15
Discussion
This integrative review showed that most of the articles included dealt with the RRT sector in a single country (USA). There was a predominance of studies highlighting the deleterious effects of privatization and oligopolization phenomena on patients. Among these effects, the studies showed higher rates of hospitalization and death, adverse selection of one RRT method over another and lower referral to kidney transplantation. Some of these results were attributed to conflicts of interest in the RRT sector. The studies that were favorable to private for-profit units or those belonging to LDO showed, above all, lower costs, greater economic efficiency and better performance in the anemia control indicator for patients. As such, this discussion was structured into four dimensions: 1) Hospitalization and death of dialysis patients; 2) Conflicts of interest in the RRT sector; 3) PD utilization; and 4) Economic efficiency and quality of care in RRT.
Hospitalization and Death of Dialysis Patients
The causes of hospitalization and death in the dialysis population are multifactorial and difficult to prevent,56–58 nevertheless the studies included in this review have repeatedly shown greater morbidity20,33,40 and mortality in patients treated in facilities for profitable than non-profit or public ones, even after adjustment for several confounding factors.20,25,26,30,31,35,38,43,49,51,52
There are some explanations that could justify these results. Studies by Ozgen50 and Griffiths54 showed that for-profit dialysis units used fewer employees per patient and fewer qualified professionals than non-profit dialysis units. Lee et al40 showed that private dialysis centers or those belong to LDO carry out HD sessions of shorter duration than non-profit RRT services, which is known to be associated with a higher risk of intra-dialysis complications.59,60 Another hypothesis could be the greater resources diverted, by for-profit dialysis facilities, to pay for amenities used for market competition, such as hospitality, decoration, more comfortable seats and entertainment.61,62 In the private dialysis sector, there is greater profit from in-hospital dialysis sessions than from outpatient ones, which could represent a commercial stimulus for hospitalizations.40,63 On the other hand, public or non-profit facilities could have a lower hospitalization rate due to the need to reduce the occupancy of public beds, as they are linked to universities and receive donations and tax exemptions, thus being able to make greater investments in human and direct patient care.25,63
Brazil is an upper-middle-income Latin American country that has the third largest dialysis population in the world and is one of the ten nations with the greatest incidence of advanced CKD.10,64,65 To date, there are no Brazilian studies that directly compared the performance of for-profit and non-profit dialysis units. Brazil has a dual health system in which the public and universal system coexists with the private supplementary one. There are profound differences in the determinants of health and illness between people with and without private health insurance (hygiene and housing conditions, security, public transportation, income, education, social support and access to complementary exams and specialized treatments).66–69 This is probably the main explanation for the higher mortality of dialysis patients who do not have private health insurance, as shown in recent Brazilian studies.70,71
Conflicts of Interest in the RRT Sector
Compared to the general population, the RRT population is highly vulnerable due to their greater age and burden of comorbidities, lower income and schooling and, therefore, higher rates of hospitalization and death.72 Among people on dialysis, racial minority and low-income groups have less access to specialized treatments and worse clinical outcomes.73 The variety of therapeutic options is an additional complexity, as they are dependent on local incentives and availability, patient characteristics and knowledge of the services and health professionals involved.74,75 Therefore, decision-making centered on patients with advanced chronic kidney disease becomes a challenge.
The studies carried out by Amaral,24 Gander,27 Zhang,32 Balhara,36 Foley44 and Garg52 showed that the enrollment rate of patients on the transplant list was lower in for-profit dialysis units and those belonging to LDO than in non-profit clinics. Possible explanation for these results could be the payment model for production of HD sessions, as it may constitute commercial disadvantage for reducing the number of patients on dialysis, whether through kidney transplantation or longer stays in conservative management of kidney function.76 Between 2008 and 2022, the estimated number of people on dialysis funded by the Brazilian Public Health System increased from 69,675 to 110,924, while the number of new kidney transplants increased from 3426 to just 4218 in the same period, thus causing a progressive increase in demand for organs for transplantation.64 A survey by the Brazilian Society of Nephrology showed that only 22% of dialysis patients are on the wait-list for kidney transplantation.65 There are no Brazilian studies comparing the wait-listing rate for kidney transplantation in for-profit dialysis facilities or LDO with the rate in their own or independent public facilities.
Erythropoietin derivatives (EPO) are essential medications for treating anemia in dialysis patients. It is well known that excessive doses can be harmful and the dose of EPO should be titrated according to the serum hemoglobin level.3,77 Studies by Zhang,35 Ishida,34 Thamer45 and Lissovoy55 showed that the use of EPO by patients undergoing HD before 2011 in for-profit clinics was greater than in non-profit ones, regardless of the rate of patients reaching the hemoglobin target or the change in this parameter that occurred from the mid-2000s.3 A possible justification for these results could be government reimbursement for the use and application of these drugs in dialysis clinics, which was in force in the USA until 2011.78 After the implementation of the bundle payment system, for-profit dialysis units and those belonging to LDO reduced the average dose of EPO for their patients by 38%.78 This new system, named Prospective Payment System (PPS), incorporated erstwhile separately billable services, including EPO, into a single bundled payment.79
PD Utilization
Mehrota43 and Furth53’s studies showed that north-American for-profit dialysis facilities or those belonging to LDO had lower PD utilization than non-for-profit ones. The lower profitability of the PD compared to HD may be one of the explanations for these results.80,81 In many countries, the use of PD remains low despite arguments that support its greater use, including outcomes similar to HD, home-based therapy, avoidance of central venous catheters and potential health economic advantages.80 Luijtgaarden et al81 evaluated 36 countries around the world with the aim of determining macroeconomic factors and population characteristics related to PD use. They found that lower PD utilization was independently associated to higher prevalence of diabetes, higher per capita health expenditure, greater participation of private for-profit centers, and higher costs of PD consumables relative to personnel.
The increase in the absolute number of people on dialysis in Brazil mentioned above corresponded to an increase in prevalence from 36.4 to 51.7 per 100,000 inhabitants in the last two decades, which occurred exclusively at the expense of the HD method, since the prevalence of people on PD fell from 2.9 to 2.3 per 100,000.64 Unfortunately, there are no Brazilian studies that analyzed the use of PD in private dialysis facilities or LDO, comparing it with the use in their own or independent public facilities. In countries of continental dimensions such as Brazil, greater use of PD could improve the quality of life of thousands of people who have to travel three times a week to perform HD in dialysis facilities, most of which are located in large urban centers.82–85
Economic Efficiency and Quality of Care in RRT
This review showed greater economic efficiency and better-quality care indicators in for-profit dialysis facilities and LDO compared to non-profit ones. As described previously, the studies by Ozgen50 and Griffiths54 showed that for-profit dialysis units could reduce their per HD session costs by using fewer employees per patient and fewer qualified professionals.54 The quality indicator whose performance was superior in private services than in public ones was mainly the better control of patients’ anemia as showed by Foley,44 Hirth39 and Hynes.37 Possible explanations for this result could be the greater use of EPO, which was a high-cost reimbursable medication at the time the studies were carried out.55,62
Few countries in the world have dialysis registries robust enough to collect dialysis quality information systemically.86 In the USA, the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) has for decades provided grouped information on quality indicators, hospitalization and death of patients undergoing RRT, among others.87 Furthermore, information with a greater level of detail can be obtained upon request from the USRDS coordination and was the source of data for many of the studies included in this review (Table 3).
Despite this great availability of information, a key factor for the efficiency of hemodialysis, that is, the type of vascular access, was not addressed by the studies included in this review. Compared to venous catheters, the use of arteriovenous fistula is associated with greater dialysis efficiency and survival.88 A recent study carried out in Brazil showed that patients with private health insurance have a lower rate of arteriovenous fistula use than patients with exclusive coverage from the public system.89 On the other hand, SUS patients have a higher rate of use of non-tunneled catheters than patients with private insurance, with the former devices being associated with greater risks of infection and death.89
In the Brazilian case, Ordinance number 1675 of 2018 determines that public managers must monitor a series of quality indicators in dialysis facilities.90 However, this is unfulfilled monitoring and information on the quality of RRT in Brazil comes mainly from surveys carried out by the Brazilian Society of Nephrology, in which the participation of dialysis facilities is voluntary and the percentage of adherence has been only 25–30%.11,72,91
Study’s Limitation
The limitations of this review must be acknowledged. Firstly, the results presented here cannot be generalized, since more than 90% of the studies addressed the RRT sector of a single country. Nevertheless, a recent scoping review also showed that the origin of the retrieved articles was predominantly from high- and upper-middle-income countries, especially the USA.92 In the case of Brazil, there is an unproven possibility that private RRT services perform as well as or better than public services, considering the progressive de-funding of the SUS93–95 and the supplementary health income that private services obtain in addition to the amounts paid by the SUS, since more than 70% of dialysis services in Brazil are mixed in terms of the type of public served.64,65 Secondly, many studies used the USRDS database in overlapping periods, which could lead to partial duplication of results. However, the differences in objectives, data extraction methods and number of variables included in multiple models remained present between these studies. Thirdly, important outcomes such as mortality and hospitalization must be analyzed with caution due to the large number of confounding factors.49 Fourthly the use of only one search source (VHL Portal) may have interfered with the number and characteristics of the publications evaluated. Finally, the lack of uniformity and use of scientific descriptors in the areas of economics and health policy may have resulted in the non-inclusion of relevant studies.
Conclusion
This integrative review showed possible deleterious effects of privatization and oligopolies in the RRT sector. Among these effects, the studies have shown higher rates of hospitalization and mortality, and lower rates of referral for kidney transplantation and PD utilization in for-profit dialysis units and those belonging to large organizations, compared to public or non-profit ones. Carrying out these studies was only possible due to a robust, nationwide information system. In this sense, the absence of studies from different nations, with the exception of the USA, was worrying. When considering the example of Brazil, attention should be drawn to the progressive oligopolization of the RRT sector, the progressive reduction in the PD utilization, the low referral rate for kidney transplantation and the failure to comply with the Ministry of Health’s Ordinance, which requires public managers to monitor the quality of RRT care. In countries with a universal health system and a rapid increase in the prevalence of people undergoing RRT, the significant volume of public resources that are consumed by multinational and profit-making companies has pointed to the need to evaluate the care provided in RRT in a systemic and transparent way.
Abbreviations
CKD, chronic kidney disease; EPO, erythropoietin; HD, hemodialysis; HHI, Herfindahl-Hirschman Index; LDO, large dialysis organizations; PD, peritoneal dialysis; RR, relative risk.; RRT, renal replacement therapy; SMR, standard mortality ratio; SUS, Sistema Único de Saúde (Brazilian Unified Health System); USA, United States of America; USRDS, United States Renal Data System; VHL, Health Library Regional Portal.
Data Sharing Statement
The data used to support the findings of this study are included in the article.
Author Contributions
All authors contribute equally in the conception, study design, execution, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation, drafting, revising and critically reviewing the article. All authors gave final approval of the version to be published; have agreed on the journal to which the article has been submitted; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Disclosure
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.
References
1. Luyckx VA, Tonelli M, Stanifer JW. The global burden of kidney disease and the sustainable development goals. Bull World Health Organ. 2018;96(6):414–422D. doi:10.2471/BLT.17.206441
2. Liyanage T, Ninomiya T, Jha V, et al. Worldwide access to treatment for end-stage kidney disease: a systematic review. Lancet. 2015;385(9981):1975–1982. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61601-9
3. Stevens PE, Levin A; Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes Chronic Kidney Disease Guideline Development Work Group Members. Evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease: synopsis of the kidney disease: improving global outcomes 2012 clinical practice guideline. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(11):825–830. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-11-201306040-00007
4. Tonelli M, Wiebe N, Knoll G, et al. Systematic review: kidney transplantation compared with dialysis in clinically relevant outcomes. Am J Transplant. 2011;11(10):2093–2109. doi:10.1111/j.1600-6143.2011.03686.x
5. Thurlow JS, Joshi M, Yan G, et al. Global epidemiology of end-stage kidney disease and disparities in kidney replacement therapy. Am J Nephrol. 2021;52(2):98–107. doi:10.1159/000514550
6. Sloan CE, Hoffman A, Maciejewski ML, Coffman CJ, Trogdon JG, Wang V. Trends in dialysis industry consolidation after medicare payment reform, 2006–2016. JAMA Health Forum. 2021;2(11):e213626. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.3626
7. Silva Junior GBD, Oliveira JGR, Oliveira MRB, Vieira LJES, Dias ER. Global costs attributed to chronic kidney disease: a systematic review. Rev Assoc Med Bras. 2018;64(12):1108–1116. doi:10.1590/1806-9282.64.12.1108
8. Elshahat S, Cockwell P, Maxwell AP, Griffin M, O’Brien T, O’Neill C. The impact of chronic kidney disease on developed countries from a health economics perspective: a systematic scoping review. PLoS One. 2020;15(3):e0230512. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0230512
9. Yeung E, Bello AK, Levin A, et al. Current status of health systems financing and oversight for end-stage kidney disease care: a cross-sectional global survey. BMJ Open. 2021;11(7):e047245. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047245
10. Alcalde PR, Kirsztajn GM. Expenses of the Brazilian Public Healthcare System with chronic kidney disease. J Bras Nefrol. 2018;40(2):122–129. doi:10.1590/2175-8239-JBN-3918
11. Brazil, Ministry of Health. National Registry of Health Establishments (Cadastro Nacional de Estabelecimentos de Saúde [CNES]). Available from: http://tabnet.datasus.gov.br/cgi/deftohtm.exe?cnes/cnv/servc2br.def.
12. Brazil, Ministry of Health. Ordinance number 1112, June, 13, 2002. Determines that the group’s procedures - renal replacement therapy - TRS are financed by the strategic actions and compensation fund - FAEC/Strategic actions. Available from: https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/saudelegis/gm/2002/prt1112_13_06_2002.html.
13. Fulton BD. Health care market concentration trends in the United States: evidence and policy responses. Health Aff. 2017;36(9):1530–1538. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0556
14. Pescuma-Junior A, Alves DFA, Mendes A, Bousquat A. International capital companies and the Brazilian health system: a study on renal replacement therapy. Cien Saude Colet. 2021;26(9):4163–4172. doi:10.1590/1413-81232021269.20742020
15. Tsai TC, Jha AK. Hospital consolidation, competition, and quality: is bigger necessarily better? JAMA. 2014;312(1):29–30. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.4692
16. Saeed MK, Ho V, Erickson KF. Consolidation in dialysis Markets-Causes, consequences, and the role of policy. Semin Dial. 2020;33(1):90–99. doi:10.1111/sdi.12855
17. Levin DI, Lingam T, Janiga NJ. 2020 outlook: dialysis clinics and ESRD. Available from: https://healthcareappraisers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/FMVantagePoint_2020-OUTLOOK-DIALYSIS-CLINICS-AND-ESRD.pdf.
18. Adler JT, Xiang L, Weissman JS, et al. Association of public reporting of medicare dialysis facility quality ratings with access to kidney transplantation. JAMA Network Open. 2021;4(9):e2126719. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.26719
19. Eliason PJ, Heebsh B, McDevitt RC, Roberts JW. How acquisitions affect firm behavior and performance: evidence from the dialysis industry. Q J Econ. 2020;135(1):221–267. doi:10.1093/qje/qjz034
20. Erickson KF, Zhao B, Niu J, et al. Association of hospitalization and mortality among patients initiating dialysis with hemodialysis facility ownership and acquisitions. JAMA Network Open. 2019;2(5):e193987. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.3987
21. Whittemore R, Knafl K. The integrative review: updated methodology. J Adv Nurs. 2005;52(5):546–553. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x
22. Pan American Health Organization, World Health Organization. Health sciences descriptors. Available from: https://decs.bvsalud.org/.
23. Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and explanation. BMJ. 2015;7647:1–25. doi:10.1136/bmj.g7647
24. Amaral S, McCulloch CE, Lin F, et al. Association between dialysis facility ownership and access to the waiting list and transplant in pediatric patients with end-stage kidney disease in the US. JAMA. 2022;328(5):451–459. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.11231
25. Liu SY, Cheng CY, Wu MY, et al. Effect of profit status in facilities on the mortality of patients on long-term haemodialysis: a nationwide cohort study. BMJ Open. 2021;11(9):e045832. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045832
26. Dickman S, Mirza R, Kandi M, et al. Mortality at for-profit versus not-for-profit hemodialysis centers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Health Serv. 2021;51(3):371–378. doi:10.1177/0020731420980682
27. Gander JC, Zhang X, Ross K, et al. Association between dialysis facility ownership and access to kidney transplantation. JAMA. 2019;322(10):957–973. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.12803
28. Erickson KF, Zheng Y, Winkelmayer WC, Ho V, Bhattacharya J, Chertow GM. Consolidation in the dialysis industry, patient choice, and local market competition. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017;12(3):536–545. doi:10.2215/CJN.06340616
29. Wilson NE. For-profit status and industry evolution in health care markets: evidence from the dialysis industry. Int J Health Econ Manag. 2016;16(4):297–319. doi:10.1007/s10754-016-9192-6
30. Ştefan G, Podgoreanu E, Mircescu G. Hemodialysis system privatization and patient survival: a report from a large registry Eastern Europe cohort. Ren Fail. 2015;37(9):1481–1485. doi:10.3109/0886022X.2015.1077320
31. Brunelli SM, Wilson S, Krishnan M, Nissenson AR. Confounders of mortality and hospitalization rate calculations for profit and nonprofit dialysis facilities: analytic augmentation. BMC Nephrol. 2014;15:121. doi:10.1186/1471-2369-15-121
32. Zhang Y, Thamer M, Kshirsagar O, Cotter DJ, Schlesinger MJ. Dialysis chains and placement on the waiting list for a cadaveric kidney transplant. Transplantation. 2014;98(5):543–551. doi:10.1097/TP.0000000000000106
33. Dalrymple LS, Johansen KL, Romano PS, et al. Comparison of hospitalization rates among for-profit and nonprofit dialysis facilities. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014;9(1):73–81. doi:10.2215/CJN.04200413
34. Ishida JH, McCulloch CE, Dudley RA, Grimes BA, Johansen KL. Dialysis facility profit status and compliance with a black box warning. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(12):1152–1153. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.979
35. Zhang Y, Thamer M, Kshirsagar O, Cotter DJ. Organizational status of dialysis facilities and patient outcome: does higher injectable medication use mediate increased mortality? Health Serv Res. 2013;48(3):949–971. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.12019
36. Balhara KS, Kucirka LM, Jaar BG, Segev DL. Disparities in provision of transplant education by profit status of the dialysis center. Am J Transplant. 2012;12(11):3104–3110. doi:10.1111/j.1600-6143.2012.04207.x
37. Hynes DM, Stroupe KT, Fischer MJ, et al. Comparing VA and private sector healthcare costs for end-stage renal disease. Med Care. 2012;50(2):161–170. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31822dcf15
38. Zhang Y, Cotter DJ, Thamer M. The effect of dialysis chains on mortality among patients receiving hemodialysis. Health Serv Res. 2011;46(3):747–767. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01219.x
39. Hirth RA, Turenne MN, Wheeler JR, Ma Y, Messana JM. Do resource utilization and clinical measures still vary across dialysis chains after controlling for the local practices of facilities and physicians? Med Care. 2010;48(8):726–732. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181e3570a
40. Lee DK, Chertow GM, Zenios SA. Reexploring differences among for-profit and nonprofit dialysis providers. Health Serv Res. 2010;45(3):633–646. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01103.x
41. Pozniak AS, Hirth RA, Banaszak-Holl J, Wheeler JR. Predictors of chain acquisition among independent dialysis facilities. Health Serv Res. 2010;45(2):476–496. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01081.x
42. Van Wyck D, Robertson J, Nissenson A, Provenzano R, Kogod D. Relationship among length of facility ownership, clinical performance, and mortality. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;5(2):248–251. doi:10.2215/CJN.03700609
43. Mehrotra R, Khawar O, Duong U, et al. Ownership patterns of dialysis units and peritoneal dialysis in the United States: utilization and outcomes. Am J Kidney Dis. 2009;54(2):289–298. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2009.01.262
44. Foley RN, Fan Q, Liu J, et al. Comparative mortality of hemodialysis patients at for-profit and not-for-profit dialysis facilities in the United States, 1998 to 2003: a retrospective analysis. BMC Nephrol. 2008;9:6. doi:10.1186/1471-2369-9-6
45. Thamer M, Zhang Y, Kaufman J, Cotter D, Dong F, Hernán MA. Dialysis facility ownership and epoetin dosing in patients receiving hemodialysis. JAMA. 2007;297(15):1667–1674. doi:10.1001/jama.297.15.1667
46. Gitto L, Santoro D, Sobbrio G. Choice of dialysis treatment and type of medical unit (private vs public): application of a recursive bivariate probit. Health Econ. 2006;15(11):1251–1256. doi:10.1002/hec.1139
47. Thamer M, Zhang Y, Kaufman J, Stefanik K, Cotter DJ. Factors influencing route of administration for epoetin treatment among hemodialysis patients in the United States. Am J Kidney Dis. 2006;48(1):77–87. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2006.03.040
48. Szczech LA, Klassen PS, Chua B, et al. Associations between CMS’s Clinical Performance Measures project benchmarks, profit structure, and mortality in dialysis units. Kidney Int. 2006;69(11):2094–2100. doi:10.1038/sj.ki.5000267
49. Devereaux PJ, Schünemann HJ, Ravindran N, et al. Comparison of mortality between private for-profit and private not-for-profit hemodialysis centers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2002;288(19):2449–2457. doi:10.1001/jama.288.19.2449
50. Ozgen H, Ozcan YA. A national study of efficiency for dialysis centers: an examination of market competition and facility characteristics for production of multiple dialysis outputs. Health Serv Res. 2002;37(3):711–732. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.00045
51. Irvin RA. Quality of care differences by ownership in United States renal dialysis facilities. ASAIO J. 2000;46(6):775–778. doi:10.1097/00002480-200011000-00023
52. Garg PP, Frick KD, Diener-West M, Powe NR. Effect of the ownership of dialysis facilities on patients’ survival and referral for transplantation. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(22):1653–1660. doi:10.1056/NEJM199911253412205
53. Furth SL, Hwang W, Neu AM, Fivush BA, Powe NR. For-profit versus not-for-profit dialysis care for children with end stage renal disease. Pediatrics. 1999;104(3 Pt 1):519–524. doi:10.1542/peds.104.3.519
54. Griffiths RI, Powe NR, Gaskin DJ, Anderson GF, de Lissovoy GV, Whelton PK. The production of dialysis by for-profit versus not-for-profit freestanding renal dialysis facilities. Health Serv Res. 1994;29(4):473–487.
55. de Lissovoy G, Powe NR, Griffiths RI, et al. The relationship of provider organizational status and erythropoietin dosing in end stage renal disease patients. Med Care. 1994;32(2):130–140. doi:10.1097/00005650-199402000-00004
56. Salman B, Hussain M, Shafique K, Imtiaz S, Dhrolia MF. Risk factors of hospitalization among chronic kidney disease patients in tertiary care hospitals - A single-center experience. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl. 2018;29(5):1150–1158. doi:10.4103/1319-2442.243973
57. Mathew AT, Rosen L, Pekmezaris R, et al. Potentially avoidable readmissions in United States hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int Rep. 2017;3(2):343–355. doi:10.1016/j.ekir.2017.10.014
58. Bao C, Bardhan I. Antecedents of patient health outcomes in dialysis clinics: a national study. J Cent Cathedra. 2017;10(1):25–48. doi:10.1108/JCC-09-2016-0015
59. Kimmel PL, Varela MP, Peterson RA, et al. Interdialytic weight gain and survival in hemodialysis patients: effects of duration of ESRD and diabetes mellitus. Kidney Int. 2000;57(3):1141–1151. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1755.2000.00941.x
60. Held PJ, Levin NW, Bovbjerg RR, Pauly MV, Diamond LH. Mortality and duration of hemodialysis treatment. JAMA. 1991;265:871–875.
61. Goldman DP, Vaiana M, Romley JA. The emerging importance of patient amenities in hospital care. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(23):2185–2187. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1009501
62. Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Orzol SM. Ownership, competition, and the adoption of new technologies and cost-saving practices in a fixed-price environment. Inquiry. 2000;37(3):282–294.
63. Lin W-H, Lin C-T, Chang H-F, et al. Financial performance of non-profit hospitals in Taiwan. J Inf Optim Sci. 2011;32:419–431.
64. Brazil, Ministry of Health. National data from the Unified Health System (DATASUS). Health Information. Outpatient and hospital production. Available from: https://datasus.saude.gov.br/informacoes-de-saude-tabnet/.
65. Neves PDMM, Sesso RCC, Thomé FS, Lugon JR, Nasicmento MM. Brazilian Dialysis Census: analysis of data from the 2009-2018 decade. Braz J Bras Nefrol. 2020;42(2):191–200. doi:10.1590/2175-8239-JBN-2019-0234
66. Fontenelle LF, Camargo MBJ, Bertoldi AD, Gonçalves H, Maciel ELN, Barros AJD. Coverage by health insurance or discount cards: a household survey in the coverage area of the Family Health Strategy. Cad Saude Publica. 2017;33(10):e00141515. doi:10.1590/0102-311X00141515
67. Novais M, Martins CB. Profile of Plan and SUS Beneficiaries and Access to Health Services – PNAD 2003 and 2008. Brasil: Instituo de Estudos da Saúde Suplementar; 2010. Available from: www.iess.org.br/sites/default/files/2021-04/TD35.pdf.
68. Nelson KM, Chapko MK, Reiber G, Boyko EJ. The association between health insurance coverage and diabetes care; data from the 2000 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Health Serv Res. 2005;40(2):361–372. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00361.x
69. Freeman HE, Corey CR. Insurance status and access to health services among poor persons. Health Serv Res. 1993;28(5):531–541.
70. Barra ABL, Silva APRD, Canziani MEF, Lugon JR, Matos JPS. Survival in hemodialysis in Brazil according to the source of payment for the treatment: Public Healthcare System (SUS) versus private insurance. J Bras Nefrol. 2023;45(3):302–309. doi:10.1590/2175-8239-JBN-2022-0131en
71. da Rocha EP, Kojima CA, Modelli de Andrade LG, et al. Comparing survival outcomes between hemodialysis and hemodiafiltration using real-world data from Brazil. J Clin Med. 2024;13(2):594. doi:10.3390/jcm13020594
72. Mohottige D, Gibson K. Staying on track to achieve racial justice in kidney care. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2022;18(2):72–73. doi:10.1038/s41581-021-00520-5
73. Kevin Tucker J. Social Justice as a Tool to Eliminate Inequities in Kidney Disease. Semin Nephrol. 2021;41(3):203–210. doi:10.1016/j.semnephrol.2021.05.001
74. Farah SS, Alhaji MM, Ahmed D, et al. Barriers to Kidney Transplantation as a Choice of Renal Replacement Therapy. Transplant Proc. 2018;50(10):3165–3171. doi:10.1016/j.transproceed.2018.07.005
75. Zee J, Zhao J, Subramanian L, et al. Perceptions about the dialysis modality decision process among peritoneal dialysis and in-center hemodialysis patients. BMC Nephrol. 2018;19(1):298. doi:10.1186/s12882-018-1096-x
76. Glickman A, Lin E, Berns JS. Conflicts of interest in dialysis: a barrier to policy reforms. Semin Dial. 2020;33(1):83–89. doi:10.1111/sdi.12848
77. Streja E, Park J, Chan TY, et al. Erythropoietin dose and mortality in hemodialysis patients: marginal structural model to examine causality. Int J Nephrol. 2016;2016:6087134. doi:10.1155/2016/6087134
78. Thamer M, Zhang Y, Kaufman J, Kshirsagar O, Cotter D, Hernán MA. Major declines in epoetin dosing after prospective payment system based on dialysis facility organizational status. Am J Nephrol. 2014;40(6):554–560. doi:10.1159/000370334
79. Hirth RA Y, Turenne MN, Wheeler JR, et al. The initial impact of Medicare’s new prospective payment system for kidney dialysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2013;62(4):662–669. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2013.03.044
80. Okpechi IG, Jha V, Cho Y, et al. The case for increased peritoneal dialysis utilization in low- and lower-middle-income countries. Nephrology. 2022;27(5):391–403. doi:10.1111/nep.14024
81. van de Luijtgaarden MW, Jager KJ, Stel VS, et al. Global differences in dialysis modality mix: the role of patient characteristics, macroeconomics and renal service indicators. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2013;28(5):1264–1275.
82. Mercado-Martinez FJ, Silva DGV, Souza SS, Zillmer JGV, Lopes SGR, Böell JE. Living with renal insufficiency: obstacles to hemodialysis treatment from the perspective of sick people and their families. Physis. 2015;25(1). doi:10.1590/S0103-73312015000100005
83. Pancras G, Shayo J, Anaeli A. Non-medical facilitators and barriers towards accessing haemodialysis services: an exploration of ethical challenges. BMC Nephrol. 2018;19(1):342. doi:10.1186/s12882-018-1140-x
84. Mercado-Martínez FJ, Correa-Mauricio ME. Viviendo con hemodiálisis y sin seguridad social: las voces de los enfermos renales y sus familias [Living in hemodialysis without social insurance: the voices of renal sick people and their families]. Salud Publica Mex. 2015;57(2):155–160. Spanish.
85. McDonald SP, Ullah S, Dansie K, et al. The burden of travel-time and distance traveled for hemodialysis patients in Australian Major City Areas. Kidney Int Rep. 2023;8(5):1105–1108. doi:10.1016/j.ekir.2023.02.1077
86. Msy N, Charu V, Johnson DW, O’Shaughnessy MM, Mallett AJ. National and international kidney failure registries: characteristics, commonalities, and contrasts. Kidney Int. 2022;101(1):23–35. doi:10.1016/j.kint.2021.09.024
87. United States Renal Data System. USRDS Annual Data Report: epidemiology of kidney disease in the United States. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Available from: https://www.niddk.nih.gov/about-niddk/strategic-plans-reports/usrds.
88. Almasri J, Alsawas M, Mainou M, et al. Outcomes of vascular access for hemodialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Vasc Surg. 2016;64(1):236–243. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2016.01.053
89. Franco RP, Chula DC, de Moraes TP, Campos RP. Health insurance provider and endovascular treatment availability are associated with different hemodialysis vascular access profiles: a Brazilian national survey. Front Nephrol. 2022;2:985449. doi:10.3389/fneph.2022.985449
90. Brazil, Ministry of Health. Ordinance number 1675, June 7, 2018. Criteria for the organization, operation and financing of care for people with Chronic Kidney Disease in the Unified Health System. Available from: https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/saudelegis/gm/2018/prt1675_08_06_2018.html.
91. Thomé FS, Sesso R, Lopes AA, Lugon JR, Martins CT. Brazilian chronic dialysis survey 2017. J Bras Nefrol. 2019;41(2):208–214. doi:10.1590/2175-8239-JBN-2018-0178
92. Emrani Z, Amiresmaili M, Daroudi R, Najafi MT, Akbari Sari A. Payment systems for dialysis and their effects: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23(1):45. doi:10.1186/s12913-022-08974-4
93. Santos NRD. 30 years of SUS: the beginning, the pathway and the target. Cien Saude Colet. 2018;23(6):1729–1736. doi:10.1590/1413-81232018236.06092018
94. Noronha JC, Noronha GS, Pereira TR, Costa AM. The future of the Brazilian Health System: a short review of its pathways towards an uncertain and discouraging horizon. Cien Saude Colet. 2018;23(6):2051–2059. doi:10.1590/1413-81232018236.05732018
95. Vieira SF. Health financing in Brazil and the goals of the 2030 Agenda: high risk of failure. Rev Saude Publica. 2020;54:127. doi:10.11606/s1518-8787.2020054002414
© 2024 The Author(s). This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The
full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php
and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution
- Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License.
By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted
without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly
attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.