Overview
Measure Overview
The hyperphosphatemia measure was developed based on the recommendations of a clinical technical expert panel’s (TEP) consideration of the multiple large, risk-adjusted observational studies demonstrating a consistent relationship between presence of chronic hyperphosphatemia and adverse patient outcomes including cardiovascular complications, bone fracture, and increased mortality. In addition, prospective studies have reported lower mortality in patients treated with improved phosphorus control or who used phosphate-binding medications. This measure will help facilities identify patients with chronic elevation in phosphorus that may need additional intervention such as nutritional counseling, initiating of phosphorus binding medications or adjustment of dialysis prescription. Improvements in the proportion of patients with a chronically elevated phosphorus should decrease cardiovascular complications, hospitalizations, and overall mortality.
CMS is considering adding the Facility Level Percentage of Chronic Hyperphosphatemia in Dialysis Patients measure to the End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program (ESRD QIP) as a new clinical quality measure. The purpose of this measure is to focus quality efforts on those patients with significant, chronic elevations in phosphorus who would benefit from additional intervention, as improvement in chronic hyperphosphatemia can improve cardiovascular complications, fracture, hospitalizations, and mortality. The intent would be to replace the current Hypercalcemia reporting measure with this new measure while maintaining compliance with statutory requirements to include a bone and mineral metabolism measure in the ESRD QIP measure set.
New measure never reviewed by the Measure Applications Partnership (MAP) Workgroup, or PRMR or used in a Medicare program.
Endorsed 2024
N/A
Measure Specification
Number of patient reporting months in the denominator with a 6-month rolling average phosphorus greater than or equal to 6.5 mg/dL.
N/A
Not applicable
Number of patient reporting months among adult (greater than or equal to 18 years old) in-center hemodialysis, home hemodialysis, or peritoneal dialysis patients under the care of the dialysis facility for the entire reporting month who have had ESRD for greater than 90 days.
N/A
In addition to exclusions that are implicit in the measure definition (age <18 years old, <90 days of ESRD, or not receiving treatment at the facility for the full calendar month) there are two additional exclusions:
6-month rolling average albumin of less than 3.5 mg/dL
BMI under 18.5
Meaningfulness
Importance
Chronic hyperphosphatemia is a common complication in patients with ESRD, associated with increased risks of cardiovascular events, bone disorders, and mortality. Management of serum phosphorus is a routine part of dialysis care, and dialysis facilities are responsible for implementing interventions such as dietary counseling, phosphorus binders, and dialysis adjustments. National guidelines recommend monitoring and lowering elevated phosphate levels. While randomized controlled trials in this topic area are lacking, the measure developer conducted a comprehensive literature review and presented extensive observational evidence linking elevated phosphorus levels to adverse outcomes. The developers noted that this measure was meaningful to patients, with less time in hospital cited as important to quality of life.
During CBE endorsement review in 2024, the committee found the evidence supporting the importance of this measure to be sufficient.
Conformance
The intent of this measure is to help facilities identify patients with chronic elevation in phosphorus that may need additional intervention such as nutritional counseling, initiating of phosphorus-binding medications, or adjustment of dialysis prescription. The measure’s numerator, denominator, and exclusions are clearly defined and directly support the intent of this measure. Specifically, the numerator captures the number of patient reporting months in the denominator with a 6-month rolling average phosphorus greater than or equal to 6.5 mg/dL. The denominator captures the number of patient reporting months among adults (greater than or equal to 18 years old) receiving in-center hemodialysis, home hemodialysis, or peritoneal dialysis patients under the care of the dialysis facility for the entire reporting month who have had ESRD for greater than 90 days. This measure aligns with the End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program goal to promote high-quality services in renal dialysis facilities.
Feasibility
No, not an eCQM
Phosphorus levels are routinely monitored as part of standard dialysis care, and the relevant data are already required for submission to the End Stage Renal Disease Quality Reporting System (EQRS) for Medicare-certified dialysis facilities—the entities participating in ESRD QIP. Because all necessary data elements are generated during routine clinical workflows and available in electronic sources, implementation of the measure is not expected to introduce additional data collection burden or disrupt existing care processes.
During CBE endorsement review in 2024, the committee found the feasibility of this measure to be sufficiently demonstrated.
Validity
Empiric validity [MERIT submission form; Supplemental Materials]
Facility
Yes
Poisson regression analysis indicates that dialysis facilities with higher rates of chronic hyperphosphatemia have correspondingly higher mortality and hospitalization rates. Facilities in the highest quintile had 18% higher mortality and 13% higher hospitalization compared to those in the lowest quintile. These results align with expectations and support the measure’s validity in reflecting facility-level performance.
During CBE endorsement review in 2024, the committee found the validity of this measure to be sufficiently demonstrated.
The measure developer did not discuss potential threats to validity of the measure at the facility level. Risk adjustment and stratification are not indicated for this measure.
Consideration for the committee: Based on committee members’ professional experience, are there additional threats to validity such as patient- or facility-level confounding factors that should be considered for this measure? If so, how might these be mitigated during data collection and reporting?
Reliability
Signal-to-Noise [MERIT Submission Form]
Facility
Reliability testing using 2022 data showed an inter-unit reliability (IUR) of 0.77, indicating that 77% of the variation in the measure is due to differences between facilities. This suggests a high level of reliability, because the distribution is non-normal. Interpretation of the IUR should be approached with caution, as it may not fully capture variability across providers.
During CBE endorsement review in 2024, the committee found the reliability of this measure to be sufficiently demonstrated.
Battelle staff performed additional assessment of reliability testing data in Table 2 to provide committee members a standardized format to assess reliability by decile across measures.
Table 2. MUC2025-064 Mean Reliability (by Reliability Decile)
| Mean | Decile 1 | Decile 2 | Decile 3 | Decile 4 | Decile 5 | Decile 6 | Decile 7 | Decile 8 | Decile 9 | Decile 10 |
| 0.767 | 0.476 | 0.590 | 0.652 | 0.694 | 0.728 | 0.757 | 0.783 | 0.810 | 0.839 | 0.883 |
The developer provided information by decile for performance scores and calculated reliability for the 7,494 entities described in the testing submission. Tables 1 and 2 show deciles by performance score and reliability. For this proportion measure, a lower score indicates better quality of care.
Table 1. MUC2025-064 Performance Score Deciles
| - | Overall | Min | Decile 1 | Decile 2 | Decile 3 | Decile 4 | Decile 5 | Decile 6 | Decile 7 | Decile 8 | Decile 9 | Decile 10 | Max |
| Mean Score | 23.1% | 0% | 7.8% | 13.4% | 16.0% | 18.4% | 20.6% | 22.9% | 25.4% | 28.3% | 32.1% | 45.8% | 100% |
| Entities | 7,497 | 15 | 749 | 750 | 749 | 751 | 749 | 750 | 750 | 746 | 754 | 749 | 28 |
Usability
Yes, the submission materials briefly discuss the measure’s usability within the ESRD QIP.
The measure has high usability within the CMS ESRD QIP due to its reliance on routinely collected data, alignment with clinical guidelines, and potential to reflect meaningful differences in facility-level care. The developer anticipates that reducing chronic hyperphosphatemia could lead to lower hospitalization and mortality rates, potentially generating cost savings. However, these savings may be offset by increased medication costs for phosphate binders and absorption inhibitors.
The developer identified two unintended consequences in submission materials. First, efforts to lower phosphorus levels may risk patient malnutrition. To address this, the measure excludes patients with indicators of malnutrition, such as low serum albumin or underweight BMI. Second, the pill burden and poor palatability of phosphate binders may negatively affect patients’ quality of life. These considerations highlight the importance of balancing clinical outcomes with patient-centered care in measure implementation.
During CBE endorsement review in 2024, the committee found the use/usability of this measure to be sufficiently demonstrated.
Appropriateness of Scale
Overview
None specified
The measure offers a balanced mix of burden and benefit for both patients and dialysis facilities. For facilities, the burden is low because the measure uses data already collected during routine care and it aligns with existing clinical responsibilities. The potential benefit includes improved patient outcomes and reduced hospitalization rates, though facilities may face increased medication costs.
For patients, the measure supports better health outcomes by targeting a known risk factor—chronic hyperphosphatemia. However, it may also introduce challenges such as increased pill burden and potential impacts on quality of life. To reduce harm, the measure excludes patients at risk of malnutrition. Overall, the measure is designed to improve care while minimizing disruption and unintended consequences.
The developer’s literature review and analysis do not indicate a potential for differential benefit or harm to specific subgroups of participating entities or their patient populations.
Considerations for the committee: Based on clinical and professional experience, the committee should consider the distribution of benefit and risks/burdens of the measure within the proposed program population.
Time to Value Realization
Overview
Yes, near- and long-term impacts are identified in submission materials.
The developer notes several new and long-term impacts of the measure. In the short term, reducing chronic hyperphosphatemia is expected to lower hospitalization and mortality rates at the facility level, potentially improving patient outcomes and generating cost savings. Over the long term, the measure may encourage more consistent and proactive management of mineral and bone disorders (MBD) across dialysis facilities, aligning care with clinical guidelines and improving overall treatment quality.
Considerations for the committee:
- Will benefits and burdens associated with this measure be realized within an appropriate implementation time frame?
- How will this measure mature through revisions in the future if added to these programs’ measure sets?
Public Comments
NKF Comments on Facility-Level Chronic Hyperphosphatemia Measure
NKF supports the proposed facility-level hyperphosphatemia measure and agrees that, among mineral metabolism measures, this approach is preferable to alternatives such as hypercalcemia. Setting the threshold at a higher phosphorus level (≥6.5 mg/dL) helps mitigate some concerns related to overtreatment and aligns better with clinical realities in the dialysis population.
However, NKF urges CMS to remain vigilant about unintended consequences. Aggressively driving phosphorus levels toward the normal range may result in patient harm, including overly restrictive diets that compromise nutritional status or intolerable pill burdens from phosphate binders. Phosphorus management in ESRD is influenced by a multitude of factors and heavily influenced by patient adherence, dietary access, and the availability of appropriate therapies. CMS should ensure that measure implementation does not incentivize practices that undermine patient well-being or quality of life.
MUC2025-064 measure
Support with modification: Supports monitoring chronic condition burden, however recommend clarification of scope and alignment with existing MA chronic care metrics. There are also challenges in managing this lab value for patients with ESRD and relies on collaboration between primary care provider and dialysis center.
Facility Level Percentage of Chronic Hyperphosphatemia in Dialys
See attachment. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment.
MUC2025-064: Facility Level Percentage of Chronic Hyperphosphate
On behalf of Kidney Care Partners (KCP), I want to thank you for providing the opportunity to submit comments on the measures currently under consideration for use in select Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) programs (MUC List). Our comments focus on the three measures related to the Medicare End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) program. We support the hyperphosphatemia measure and urge the MUC panel not to recommend the Patient Life Goals and Advance Care Planning measures at this time for the reasons described in this letter.
KCP is an alliance of more than 30 members of the kidney care community, including patient advocates, health care professionals, providers, and manufacturers organized to advance policies that support the provision of high-quality care for individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD), including those living with End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD). Our mission is to involve patient advocates, care professionals, providers and manufacturers to ensure:
In 2024, CMS contracted with the University of Michigan Kidney Epidemiology and Cost Center (UM-KECC) to convene a technical expert panel (TEP) with the goal of use existing data and their expert opinion to formulate recommendations regarding the development of a draft measure that addresses quality gaps in mineral and bone disorder (BMD) management. Several KCP members were represented on this TEP.
KCP agrees that improving hyperphosphatemia is an important step toward improving overall quality of care for individuals receiving dialysis. The current serum phosphate measure, which KCP has supported, is topped out with the vast majority of dialysis facilities meeting that measure’s goal. To advance the quality of care related to BMD in dialysis patients, it is time to adopt a new measure to close the gap in care this area.
While no measure is perfect, the TEP agreed that the proposed hyperphosphatemia measure is appropriate at this time. KCP agrees. Observational data demonstrate that levels above the measure’s threshold are clearly associated with harm. We recognize that some will argue against any measure because hyperphosphatemia is also dependent on patient adherence, patient choices, timing with meals, tolerability, and dietary behavior. These factors are often out of the control of a dialysis facility. We also recognize that strict targets may not be appropriate for all patients. However, the risk of not properly managing hyperphosphatemia, which includes cardiovascular mortality, outweighs these concerns.
In addition, KCP continues to believe that all measures should receive endorsement from the consensus-based entity before they are added to the ESRD QIP; this, KCP urges CMS to seek its endorsement immediately.
To ensure the appropriate implementation and collection of data for this measure, KCP asks CMS to consider a year of reporting. We would like to work with CMS to ensure that EQRS is updated to allow data for this measure to be collected.
In sum, KCP supports the MUC panel approving this measure for use in the ESRD QIP.
Again, KCP appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the MUC list. We look forward to working with CMS on this and future quality initiatives to improve outcomes and quality of life for individuals who rely upon the Medicare program for life-sustaining dialysis treatments. Please do not hesitate to reach out if you have questions or would like additional information about KCP’s recommendations.
Percentage of Chronic Hyperphosphatemia in Dialysis Patients
The Renal Physicians Association (RPA) is a non-profit 501(c)(6) national nephrology specialty medical association whose mission is to empower the kidney community through education and advocacy in the pursuit of our vision for optimal kidney care for all. RPA is the trusted voice and advocate for nephrology practice, equipping kidney care professionals with unmatched expert guidance in reimbursement policy, clinical operations, and practice sustainability. Through education, leadership development, and policy-driven advocacy, RPA drives innovation and promotes access to the delivery of patient-centered kidney care.
RPA appreciates the interest in serum phosphate as a potentially modifiable risk factor in patients with ESRD receiving in-center hemodialysis. Observational studies have suggested that the serum phosphate level may contribute to vascular calcification, associated adverse outcomes, and increased mortality in hemodialysis patients (1). These observations have suggested a possible causal linkage between phosphate levels and clinical outcomes. However, while it is possible that controlling serum phosphate may improve patient outcomes, the most appropriate serum target level needed to accomplish this goal, as would be ideal for a well-defined quality indicator, has not been definitively proven. Rather, the present goals are opinion based (2) and studies are currently ongoing to determine the most clinically efficacious target level for serum phosphate (3).
There are additional concerns regarding the use of this measure as an indicator of dialysis facility quality. Serum phosphorus is not controlled by thrice weekly hemodialysis, per se. Rather, serum phosphate levels are predominantly determined by the patient's dietary intake and by their ability to take and tolerate the numerous side-effects of the currently available phosphate lowering medications. Additionally, not all phosphate-lowering medications are included in the current ESRD Prospective Payment System (PPS) bundle. This limitation is outside of the facilities’ control and can directly impact the ability to optimally manage serum phosphate levels.
RPA appreciates the intent of the measure to address hyperphosphatemia. However, the RPA is concerned that this measure has not gone through review with a consensus-based entity, leaving open questions regarding both its validity and feasibility. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the impact of potential unintended consequences, such as the lack of availability, or delays in medication administration, related to the inclusion of some agents in the ESRD bundle, and the exclusion of others, have been carefully evaluated.
There are important challenges to consider when implementing such a measure. Factors influencing serum phosphate levels extend beyond the dialysis facility and include patient adherence, patient dietary options and choices, and medication accessibility. These considerations highlight the complexity of using phosphate control as a quality indicator for dialysis centers, and the RPA strongly suggests additional review by a clinically knowledgeable consensus-based entity.
1.Zhang H, Li G, Yu X, et al. Progression of Vascular Calcification and Clinical Outcomes in Patients Receiving Maintenance Dialysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(5):e2310909. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.10909
2. Ikizler TA, Burrowes JD, Byham-Gray LD, et al. KDOQI Clinical Practice Guideline for Nutrition in CKD: 2020 Update. Am J Kidney Dis. 2020;76(3 Suppl 1):S1-S107. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2020.05.006
3. Pragmatic randomized trial of High Or Standard PHosphAte Targets in End-stage kidney disease (PHOSPHATE) ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03573089
4. Federal Register/Vol. 89, No. 218/Tuesday, November 12, 2024/89084.Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Parts 410, 413, 494, and 512 [CMS–1805–F]
MUC2025-064
FME recognizes the need for a meaningful approach to assessing phosphorus management. We note, however, several challenges with holding facilities accountable for phosphorus levels in patients, including patient adherence to prescribed phosphate binders, timing with meals, tolerability, and dietary choices that are outside clinic control. We also highlight that strict targets may not be appropriate for all patients due to intolerance to binders or other clinical considerations .
We also urge CMS to carefully consider how data will be collected for this measure to ensure information is readily available, particularly because BMI is not yet included in EQRS. We ask CMS to designate this as a reporting measure for at least one year. This is consistent with the approach taken for ICH CAHPS and depression screening, both reporting measures in the ESRD QIP before transitioning to clinical measures. This approach would give CMS insight into measure reliability, address timing issues associated with the six-month look-back period and allow for a benchmark period that would take place after phosphate binders have been included in the base rate.
Recommendation: FME recommends that if CMS adopts MUC2025‑064 that it do so as a reporting measure for at least one year before adopting as a clinical measure in quality reporting programs.
MUC2025-064 Facility Level of Chronic Hyperphosphatemia
ASN recognizes that including phosphate-lowering medications in the prospective payment system may justify the development of a quality measure. However, ASN cannot support the measure in its current form due to concerns about the robustness of the evidence and the potential for unintended consequences. ASN offers additional considerations below.
The proposed metric relies on observational data and expert opinion with regards to serum phosphorus level thresholds rather than robust clinical trial evidence. No published trials have definitively shown that pharmacological lowering of serum phosphate to below the proposed threshold leads to improved clinical outcomes for patients. In practice, some patients have elevated phosphate levels above 6.5 mg/dL for periods of time due to improvements in dietary intake, which should not be discouraged. At a minimum, CMS should consider a higher threshold and exclusion criteria for patients with established nutritional challenges.
ASN notes that serum phosphate levels are influenced by multiple non-medication and non-diet related factors, most notably the timing of the hemodialysis session relative to phosphate measurement. For example, phosphate levels will be higher after the long interval for patients with labs assessed on Mondays than they will be after shorter interdialytic intervals. Additionally, a phosphate level drawn immediately after hemodialysis will be much lower than a phosphate level assessed pre-hemodialysis.
ASN highlights the recent HiLo trial[i], which was stopped early. In this trial, which possessed clinical equipoise during the design phase, the high target was a serum phosphate level of >=6.5 mg/dL and the low target was <5.5 mg/dL. The HiLo trial suffered from recruitment issues and a failure to achieve sufficient separation between groups. Within those limitations, over a too brief follow-up of 1.4 years, no signals of any differences in clinical outcomes existed between groups.
While it is not possible to draw strong conclusions from this trial, it is safe to say that this trial could not have occurred if the proposed metric were in place. In Australia, a trial of 3600 dialysis patients is underway that will assess a target phosphate threshold of <4.6 mg/dL to a more relaxed target of ~ 6.2-7.7 mg/dL (NCT03573089)[ii]. ASN eagerly awaits this trial to learn more about appropriate phosphate targets in hemodialysis patients, again emphasizing that, within the proposed metric, this trial also could not be conducted.
Hyperphosphatemia is influenced by multiple factors outside a dialysis facility’s control, including patient adherence and preferences, medication tolerability, timing with meals, and dietary behaviors. As a result, strict biochemical targets, such as the one proposed in the measure, may not be appropriate for all patients. While ASN recognizes CMS’s rationale for proposing this measure given the clinical risks associated with inadequately managed hyperphosphatemia, including potential cardiovascular complications, ASN believes that a medication prescribing and adherence based measure for phosphate lowering therapies would better reflect quality of care than a serum phosphate threshold. Such measures would assess whether facilities are providing guideline-consistent, actionable care without imposing rigid biochemical targets. Medication adherence measures are already used in CMS programs, such as the Medicare Advantage Stars D08 Medication Adherence for Diabetes measure, demonstrating that adherence-based measures are feasible and scalable.
[i] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33279558/
[ii] https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03573089
Support for the Facility-Level Chronic Hyperphosphatemia Measure
Akebia Therapeutics strongly supports MUC2025-064, a measure that would require dialysis facilities to report the percentage of adult patients with a 6-month rolling average phosphorus level greater than or equal to 6.5 mg/dL. Akebia urges the MUC panel to approve this measure for use in the End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Quality Improvement Program (QIP).
The measure is based on the work of a recent CMS Technical Expert Panel (TEP) with the University of Michigan Kidney Epidemiology and Cost Center (UM-KECC) and a group of clinicians, dialysis organizations and patient representatives. The TEP was chaired by two nationally recognized nephrologists who are experts in mineral and bone metabolism (MBD) disease, which is prevalent in patients with chronic kidney disease on dialysis.
There are important clinical and policy reasons to support the proposed measure and ensure quality in this critical aspect of care for dialysis patients. Poor clinical outcomes associated with hyperphosphatemia include increased mortality, hospitalization, vascular calcification, cardiovascular events and bone fracture. Yet, treatment of hyperphosphatemia has significantly declined since the implementation of the ESRD Prospective Payment System (PPS), or “bundled payment” system, in 2011.
Global clinical treatment guidelines from the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) organization recommend treating phosphorus levels towards the normal range. In addition, the Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) Clinical Practice Guidelines recommend adjusting dietary phosphorus to maintain a serum phosphate goal for hemodialysis patients in the normal range (2.5 mg/dL to 4.5 mg/dL). However, according to the U.S. Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Pattern Study (US-DOPPS), the number of dialysis patients with a serum phosphorus level > 5.5 mg/dL increased in the first 10 years of the bundled payment system from 34% in 2011 to 43% in 2021.
Similarly, the 2023 U.S. Renal Data System (USRDS) reports declining treatment rates. The number of ESRD patients with Part D coverage receiving a phosphate binder declined from 70.1% in 2016 to 63.3% in 2021, which correlates with more patients out of target range.
Multiple factors have contributed to declining performance in treating hyperphosphatemia, including labor and renal dietician shortages, the impact of COVID, resource stress on facilities, and less focus on hyperphosphatemia in dialysis organization internal quality programs. Without a meaningful hyperphosphatemia measure in the ESRD QIP, patient outcomes may continue to worsen.
Now that phosphate binders are bundled in the ESRD PPS, it is even more important that CMS adopt a performance measure related to the quality of hyperphosphatemia treatment provided by dialysis facilities. As of January 1, 2025, dialysis facilities are financially and clinically responsible for phosphate binders, and a measure should be put in place to ensure that providers do not stint on care.
When Congress enacted the authorizing legislation to create the ESRD bundled payment system in the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act (MIPPA) of 2008, it expressed concern about creating financial incentives for facilities to undertreat patients as a result of the new single capitated payment rate. Therefore, Congress included in MIPPA a requirement that facility measures be developed and adopted for the treatment of both MBD and anemia management, because the cost of drugs treating those two conditions would be newly bundled into the PPS base rate.
To meet the statutory requirement for MBD, CMS adopted a hypercalcemia measure that is currently topped out -- there is no room for facilities to improve performance. The kidney community has urged CMS for years to retire the topped out hypercalcemia measure and replace it with a more clinically meaningful measure related to the treatment of hyperphosphatemia to fulfill the statutory measure requirement for MBD.
Akebia is pleased to see that the TEP agreed that phosphorus management is a more meaningful clinical parameter to assess performance and improve outcomes and thoughtfully defined a reasonable serum phosphate threshold which is targeted to improve care for those most at clinical risk. Managing phosphorus levels in dialysis patients can be challenging due to the variability in levels caused by diet, dialysis efficiency, residual kidney function, and other factors. Akebia believes that a 6-month rolling average phosphorus threshold of 6.5 mg/dL addresses this variability, is conservative, consistent with global clinical guidelines, actionable by providers, and is supported by robust, long term observational data.
Akebia appreciates the opportunity to express support for the hyperphosphatemia measure, which we believe would fill an important gap in ensuring quality care for the nation’s dialysis patients. Akebia has been a long-time member of Kidney Care Partners (KCP), a broad coalition of nephrologists, nurses, patient organizations, dialysis providers, and innovators dedicated to supporting policies that enhance care to this patient population. Akebia is pleased to note that KCP also supports approval of the hyperphosphatemia measure by the MUC panel for use in the ESRD QIP.
Phosphorus Level in Dialysis Patients
According to data presented, the phosphorus levels are an indicator for healthy outcomes in dialysis patients. Given the measure can be obtained electronically and research shows value, seems like reasonable measure to collect.