Every year, more than 110,000 Americans are newly diagnosed with end-stage renal disease and in the overwhelming majority, maintenance dialysis therapy is initiated. However, most patients, having received no predialysis nephrology care or dietary counseling, are inadequately prepared for starting treatment; furthermore, the majority of patients do not have a functioning permanent dialysis access. Annualized mortality in the USA in the first 3 months after starting dialysis treatment is approximately 45%; this high rate is possibly in part due to inadequate preparation for renal replacement therapy. Data from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns study suggest that similar challenges exist in many parts of the world. Implementation of strategies that mitigate the risk of adverse consequences when starting dialysis are urgently needed. In this Review we present a step-by-step approach to tackling inadequate patient preparation, which includes identifying individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are most likely to need dialysis in the future, referring patients for education, timely placement of dialysis access and timely initiation of dialysis therapy. Treatment with dialysis might not be appropriate for some patients with progressive CKD; these individuals can be optimally managed with nondialytic, maximum conservative management.

Reimbursement for chronic dialysis consumes a substantial portion of healthcare costs for a relatively small proportion of the total population. Each country has a unique reimbursement system that attempts to control rising costs. Thus, comparing the reimbursement systems between countries might be helpful to find solutions to minimize costs to society without jeopardizing quality of treatment and outcomes. We conducted a survey of seven countries to compare crude reimbursement for various dialysis modalities and evaluated additional factors, such as inclusion of drugs or physician payments in the reimbursement package, adjustment in rates for specific patient subgroups, and pay for performance therapeutic thresholds. The comparison examines the United States, the province of Ontario in Canada, and five European countries (Belgium, France, Germany, The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom). Important differences between countries exist, resulting in as much as a 3.3-fold difference between highest and lowest reimbursement rates for chronic hemodialysis. Differences persist even when our data were adjusted for per capita gross domestic product. Reimbursement for peritoneal dialysis is lower in most countries except Germany and the United States. The United Kingdom is the only country that has implemented an incentive if patients use an arteriovenous fistula. Although home hemodialysis (prolonged or daily dialysis) allows greater flexibility and better patient outcomes, reimbursement is only incentivized in The Netherlands. Unfortunately, it is not yet clear that such differences save money or improve quality of care. Future research should focus on directly testing both outcomes.