CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE PREVENTION INVESTMENT BY STAGE: WHERE SCREENING SAVES THE MOST AND WHY
Author(s)
Farah Farahati, PhD.
Senior Health Economics Advisor, Global Wellness Advisors LLC, Westlake, OH, USA.
Senior Health Economics Advisor, Global Wellness Advisors LLC, Westlake, OH, USA.
OBJECTIVES: Payers investing in CKD screening face a targeting problem: with 25.1 million undiagnosed adults at actionable Stages 2-3b, where should screening dollars maximize fiscal return? This study decomposes the prevention counterfactual by stage, quantifies stage-shift savings across four uptake scenarios, and identifies Stage 2 as the dominant investment signal — not because per-patient savings are highest, but because population mass creates the greatest aggregate opportunity.
METHODS: Stage-specific inpatient costs from Golestaneh et al. (Am J Manag Care. 2017;23[10 Suppl]:S163-S172) are applied using a 35/65 commercial-to-Medicare payer mix. Cost inputs include 30-day readmission costs rising from ~10% at no-CKD to over 23% at ESRD, amplifying the stage-shift differential. Per-patient savings: Savings(k→k−1) = Weighted Cost(k) − Weighted Cost(k−1), yielding $5,599/patient (Stage 3a→2) and $8,459/patient (Stage 3b→3a). Undiagnosed counts from NHANES 2017-2020 × ACS 2023 (N = 99.1M adults 55+) versus USRDS 2024 diagnosed counts. Four scenarios (40%-100%) at $40/person generate annual net savings, 10-year cumulative, and QALYs gained.
RESULTS: Stage 2 carries the largest undiagnosed burden: 14.9 million adults (20% diagnosis rate) incurring $88.8 billion annually. Stage 3a→2 generates the largest stage-shift savings: $5,599/patient × 8.0 million Stage 3a undiagnosed = $44.7 billion. Stage 3b→3a yields $18.2 billion ($8,459/patient × 2.2M). At 60% uptake, net savings are $38.9 billion (21:1 ROI); 10-year cumulative savings reach $389 billion (~897,000 QALYs). At 40%, savings are $25.9 billion. Full-detection savings reach $64.9 billion. The paradox: the lowest-cost stage holds the largest undetected population, making Stage 2 the highest-leverage screening target.
CONCLUSIONS: Stage 2 is the optimal CKD screening target — not the most severely ill patients, but the largest undetected population at the earliest actionable stage. This stage-decomposition reframes CKD prevention as a payer investment decision with calculable stage-specific ROI, applicable to European multi-payer contexts where screening requires explicit cost-per-stage justification for HTA and coverage policy.
METHODS: Stage-specific inpatient costs from Golestaneh et al. (Am J Manag Care. 2017;23[10 Suppl]:S163-S172) are applied using a 35/65 commercial-to-Medicare payer mix. Cost inputs include 30-day readmission costs rising from ~10% at no-CKD to over 23% at ESRD, amplifying the stage-shift differential. Per-patient savings: Savings(k→k−1) = Weighted Cost(k) − Weighted Cost(k−1), yielding $5,599/patient (Stage 3a→2) and $8,459/patient (Stage 3b→3a). Undiagnosed counts from NHANES 2017-2020 × ACS 2023 (N = 99.1M adults 55+) versus USRDS 2024 diagnosed counts. Four scenarios (40%-100%) at $40/person generate annual net savings, 10-year cumulative, and QALYs gained.
RESULTS: Stage 2 carries the largest undiagnosed burden: 14.9 million adults (20% diagnosis rate) incurring $88.8 billion annually. Stage 3a→2 generates the largest stage-shift savings: $5,599/patient × 8.0 million Stage 3a undiagnosed = $44.7 billion. Stage 3b→3a yields $18.2 billion ($8,459/patient × 2.2M). At 60% uptake, net savings are $38.9 billion (21:1 ROI); 10-year cumulative savings reach $389 billion (~897,000 QALYs). At 40%, savings are $25.9 billion. Full-detection savings reach $64.9 billion. The paradox: the lowest-cost stage holds the largest undetected population, making Stage 2 the highest-leverage screening target.
CONCLUSIONS: Stage 2 is the optimal CKD screening target — not the most severely ill patients, but the largest undetected population at the earliest actionable stage. This stage-decomposition reframes CKD prevention as a payer investment decision with calculable stage-specific ROI, applicable to European multi-payer contexts where screening requires explicit cost-per-stage justification for HTA and coverage policy.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
EE742
Topic
Economic Evaluation, Epidemiology & Public Health, Health Policy & Regulatory
Topic Subcategory
Budget Impact Analysis, Cost/Cost of Illness/Resource Use Studies
Disease
Cardiovascular Disorders (including MI, Stroke, Circulatory), Diabetes/Endocrine/Metabolic Disorders (including obesity), No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas, Urinary/Kidney Disorders