Skip to main content

Supporting dialysis policy for end stage renal disease (ESRD) in Indonesia: an updated cost-effectiveness model



Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) and hemodialysis (HD) are main modalities for end stage renal disease (ESRD) patients, and those have been covered by National Health Insurance (NHI) scheme since 2014 in Indonesia. This study aims to update the cost-effectiveness model of CAPD versus HD in Indonesia setting.


Compared to HD, CAPD provides good value for money among ESRD patients in Indonesia. Using societal perspective, the total costs were IDR 1,348,612,118 (USD 95,504) and IDR 1,368,447,750 (USD 96,908), for CAPD and HD, respectively. The QALY was slightly different between two modalities, 4.79 for CAPD versus 4.22 for HD. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) yields savings of IDR 34,723,527/QALY (USD 2460).


End stage renal disease (ESRD) has significantly contributed for mortality, morbidity, as well as economic impact both for patients and healthcare providers worldwide [1,2,3]. Due to the substantial burden of ESRD, there is a growing utilization of renal replacement therapy (RRT), including dialysis and kidney transplantation [4]. Approximately 5.4 million people are projected to receive RRT by 2030 [5]. Dialysis, is the most common treatment for ESRD, particularly haemodialysis (home or hospital-based) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) [6]. PD itself can be specified as continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) and automated peritoneal dialysis (APD).

In Indonesia, the patients’ access to dialysis in Indonesia was not high, approximately 53% with most of ESRD patients receiving HD [7]. Indonesia Renal Registry (IRR) reported that HD was the most preferable treatment, 132,142 (98%) patients compared to CAPD which were only 2478 (2%) patients [8].

More than IDR 1.5 trillion was spent in 2014, and dialysis coverage under national health insurance (NHI) system and it remains the current top substantial expense reported by BPJS Kesehatan (Indonesian health security agency) [9]. Until 2019, the government targeted a 30% first policy, CAPD however also remains underutilized among eligible ESRD patients even if it is less expensive treatment [7, 8, 10]. Therefore, we performed a cost-effectiveness model that directly compares dialysis procedures, focusing on CAPD versus hospital-based HD. We have conducted this study in early 2016, and the study indicated that CAPD was a cost-effective intervention [10]. However, there was very limited data available on parameters at that time. Hence, this study is expected to provide more updates on its cost-effectiveness results.

Methods and materials

Model structure

A Markov model was constructed with three mutually exclusive states: CAPD, HD, and death, performing 40 years time-horizon with annual cycle. ESRD patients’ cohort (55 years old) started into the model either receiving the CAPD or HD. The structure and assumptions of the model are presented in Additional file 1: Figure. S1.

Patient characteristics

The patient inclusion criteria were following consecutively: (1) Adult (≥ 18 years old) (2) had confirmed ESRD diagnosis by a nephrologist, with glomerular filtration rate (GFR) < 15 ml/min (1.73 m2) (3) Patients who received HD or CAPD started within January 2014 to December 2015 (4) Received at least 2 outpatient dialysis treatment in similar hospital/centre. We excluded patients that (1) had been receiving various RRT (2) Different hospitals for continuing dialysis cycle for less than 3 months (3) Drop-out (discontinued), had significant gap (1 month without dialysis), or died within 3 months of dialysis procedure. Consistent with a real ratio between dialysis modalities in Indonesia, we retrieved a total sample of 110 patients (28 CAPD patients, 92 HD patients). Patient characteristics is presented in Additional file 1: Table S1.

The non-hospital and private clinics HD exist in Indonesia. However, we only gathered HD patients in the hospital since this study only focused for ESRD patients who were covered under the NHI scheme.

Survival and transition probability

Survival data were using published literature data, since there was an absence of updates of survival analysis studies assessing both CAPD relative to HD in Indonesia. The parameter from IRR in 2007–2012 was used in previous studies as an economic model’s parameter, however it is only for HD patients [10, 11] Hence, we argued to utilize and update published literature for survival data as best as we can to represent Indonesia context..The data from the survival study were applied to the model, year 1-year 5 indicated the rates that were transformed into annual probability when running the model. We assumed the probability was constant after year 5. All input parameters were presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Input parameters


From a societal perspective, the costs incurred in this study include direct medical costs, direct non-medical costs, and indirect costs. Direct medical costs were collected form hospital billing data. Billing data in this study was in hospital tariff form. Furthermore, direct non-medical costs and costs related to productivity loss (indirect costs) were primarily collected by interviewing patients. Patients were interviewed before receiving dialysis in hospital or starting CAPD (direct face to face interview or by phone). The written approval and informed consent were gathered from patients Table 2.

Table 2 Total costs, life years gained (LYGs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)
Fig. 1
figure 1

a cost-effectiveness plane (CE Plane). b cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC)

To estimate the annual costs of patients, we manually calculated the monthly expenditures and then multiplied them by twelve. In practice, patients received dialysis 3 times/week, 12 per month. Since we collected data in the 2014–2015 time frame, we adjusted the costs value to 2020 IDR. We performed a 3% discount rate both for costs and effect [12].


Quality of life (Qol) values used EuroQoL EQ-5D-3L questionnaire that has been officially translated. Patients were directly interviewed—fitted with our model states. Our previous study was using the Thailand version to convert the QoL scores into value set [13]. We finally have our Indonesian value set published in 2017 [14], however this is intended to accommodate the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire, we therefore remain to report EQ-5D-3L results using the Thai value set.

Cost-effectiveness analysis

The economic assessment for this study applying cost utility analysis (CUA). Since Indonesia has not yet constructed the country-based cost-effectiveness threshold [12], the health technology with ICER/QALY values that was not greater than 1–3 GDP/capita was considered as cost-effective (1 GDP = IDR 54,6 million or USD 3,870) [15].

Sensitivity analyses

One-way deterministic-scenario sensitivity analysis was performed with simulating various plausible ranges of key input parameters (Additional file 1: Table S2). A probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was also performed using monte carlo simulation with 1000 iterations simultaneously of all parameters with their respective distribution.


Patients’ characteristics were presented in Additional file 1. The result of utility data were 0.81 and 0.65, for CAPD and HD respectively. Patients with complications have utility values 0.31 for CAPD and 0.37 for HD [10].From base case analysis, the life years gained (LYG) between two modalities were not different, both having 6.43 years. In terms of QALY, CAPD showed its favourability compared to HD, 4.79 and 4.22, respectively. It was indicated due to very slight difference between survival data, however, the quality of life value was considerably different between CAPD and HD, which thus influenced the QALY results.

The average total costs showed that HD had higher costs than CAPD although CAPD itself has higher direct medical costs. This was because of the larger portion incurred in direct non-medical costs and indirect costs (particularly transportation and productivity costs). Using societal perspective, it concluded that the CAPD may save IDR 34 million (USD 2460) per QALY, compared with HD. For a long run, initial first CAPD policy for eligible ESRD patients potentially be a promising choice and have good value for money.

At the maximum defined threshold, 1–3 GDP per capita (1 GDP = IDR 54,6 million or USD 3870) besides its cost-saving result, the highest probability to be cost-effective, approximately around threshold IDR 100,000,000–165,000,000 (Fig. 1b).


From our analysis using societal perspective, CAPD provided good value for money, as a cost-saving treatment compared to HD. This result finally provided the most updated economic evaluation on CAPD and HD, with more representative input parameters and updated monetary values that potentially enrich evidence-based policy in Indonesia context.

This economic evaluation echoed with several studies in other countries and setting, PD provided considerable ICER results compared to HD [21, 22]. In Indian context, initial policy using PD was cost-saving compared to HD for kidney failure patients, with QALY 3.3 versus 1.6, respectively. The result of economic evaluation using societal perspective could be utilized as a base judgement for price negotiation for PD consumables in India [17]. Consistent with this finding, a study in Hongkong context confirmed that as first-policy treatment PD is a cost-saving relative to hospital-based HD with ICER USD 1195 per QALY [23]. In Finland, cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) was lower in PD than HD in four strategies on initial implementation years [24].

If compared to supportive care, PD also provided the cost-effective result in Malaysia and Singapore setting. [16, 25] The PD provided the higher clinical benefit, QALY and considerable ICER. Previous study in Indonesia, confirmed that PD exceeds the maximum threshold compared to supportive care. However, budget impact analysis estimated that PD first policy can be beneficial in terms of lower transportation and indirect costs, as well as 5 years financial impact for reimbursement policy [11].

In terms of policy implementation, there are some concerns that should be considered by decision makers such as: Making CAPD more affordable and accessible, CAPD needs to become the priority treatment for ESRD patients, and ensure the supply and capacity of CAPD together with improving of HD services in Indonesia. Moreover, the government needs to strengthen capacity and infrastructure, such as supply chain.


CAPD was a cost-effective treatment compared to HD for ESRD patients in Indonesia. It must be noted that the policy impact for this study is not intended to replace or eliminate HD, vice versa. Our results provided the evidence of potential first-policy on dialysis, that is, showing its benefit and supporting rational resource allocation decision plan. The transition of dialysis and other modalities itself indeed remain justified by the specific clinical condition of ESRD patients and other complex decisions beyond this cost-effectiveness evidence.


First, the sample was limited, particularly in CAPD group. Although the proportion reflects the real number of samples between two groups in Indonesia on dialysis utilization (98% vs 2%, for CAPD vs HD, respectively), this may imply the uncertainty in parameters. Second, due to the lack of local survival data and clinical trials, this study preferred to use the best available data in Indonesia, until now there is no direct comparison evidence between CAPD and HD. Third, the value set used for utility parameters remains using other countries’ data, due to the fact that we did not have an Indonesian value set yet in 2016. We also recognized that the clinical characteristics in this study only based on the age, gender, and geographical distance to healthcare. Moreover, we used hospital sites focusing in Jakarta and West Java to collect costs data. As consequence, there was substantial variation in terms of hospital tariff across regions (direct medical costs) on different hospital levels as well as transportation costs and productivity loss.

Availability of data and materials

More detailed patient level data on costs and utility are available from upon reasonable request. Direct medical costs data was directly obtained from hospital billings and the public access is closed. We requested the direct medical cost data under official permission from hospitals.



Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis


Chronic kidney disease


Cost utility analysis


End stage renal disease




Incremental cost effectiveness ratio


Life years gained


National health insurance


Quality adjusted life years


Renal replacement therapy


  1. Thurlow JS, Joshi M, Yan G, Norris KC, Agodoa LY, Yuan CM, et al. Global epidemiology of end-stage kidney disease and disparities in kidney replacement therapy. Am J Nephrol. 2021;52:98–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bikbov B, Purcell CA, Levey AS, Smith M, Abdoli A, Abebe M, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of chronic kidney disease, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2020;395:709–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wang V, Vilme H, Maciejewski ML, Boulware LE. The economic burden of chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease. Semin Nephrol. 2016;36:319–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Coresh J. Update on the burden of CKD. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017;28:1020–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Liyanage T, Ninomiya T, Jha V, Neal B, Patrice HM, Okpechi I, et al. Worldwide access to treatment for end-stage kidney disease: a systematic review. Lancet. 2015;385:1975–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Caskey FJ, Kramer A, Elliott RF, Stel VS, Covic A, Cusumano A, et al. Global variation in renal replacement therapy for end-stage renal disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011;26:2604–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Novelia E, Nugraha RR, Thabrany H. Cost effectiveness analysis between hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. J Ekon Kesehat Indones. 2017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. PERNEFRI. 11th Report of Indonesian Renal Registry 2018. IRR. 1–46. 2018

  9. BPJS Kesehatan. Dialysis utilization pattern 2014. Internal presentation. Jakarta: 2015.

  10. Center for Health Economics and Policy Studies (CHEPS). 2017 The Economic Evaluation Of Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis (CAPD) and Hemodialysis In Indonesia. Depok. Internal Report.

  11. Afiatin KLC, Kristin E, Masytoh LS, Herlinawaty E, Werayingyong P, et al. Economic evaluation of policy options for dialysis in end-stage renal disease patients under the universal health coverage in Indonesia. PLoS ONE. 2017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kemenkes RI. 2017 Buku Panduan Penilaian Teknologi Kesehatan Efektivitas Klinis Buku Panduan Penilaian Teknologi Kesehatan. Efektivitas Klinis. 1–44.

  13. Tongsiri S, Cairns J. Estimating population-based values for EQ-5D health states in Thailand. Value Heal. 2011;14:1142–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Purba FD, Hunfeld JAM, Iskandarsyah A, Fitriana TS, Sadarjoen SS, Ramos-Goñi JM, et al. The Indonesian EQ-5D-5L Value Set. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35:1153–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bertram MY, Lauer JA, De Joncheere K, Edejer T, Hutubessy R, Kieny M-P, et al. Policy & practice Cost–effectiveness thresholds: pros and cons Thresholds based on gross domestic product. Bull World Heal Organ. 2015;2016(94):925–30.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Surendra NK, Manaf MRA, Hooi LS, Bavanandan S, Nor FSM, Khan SSF, et al. Cost utility analysis of end stage renal disease treatment in Ministry of Health dialysis centres, Malaysia: Hemodialysis versus continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gupta D, Jyani G, Ramachandran R, Bahuguna P, Ameel M, Dahiya BB, et al. Peritoneal dialysis–first initiative in India: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Clin Kidney J. 2022;15:128–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Xue H, Ix JH, Wang W, Brunelli SM, Lazarus M, Hakim R, et al. Hemodialysis access usage patterns in the incident dialysis year and associated catheter-related complications. Am J Kidney Dis. 2013;61:123–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gunawan A, SAKTI PT. Pos-662 5-year survival rate of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in end-stage renal disease in indonesia can capd be solution for esrd in low income developing country? Kidney Int Rep. 2021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Afiatin AD, Wahyudi K, Riono P, Roesli RMA. Survival analysis of chronic kidney disease patients with hemodialysis in west java. Indonesia, year 2007–2018. Maj Kedokt Bandung. 2020;52:172–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Howell M, Walker RC, Howard K. Cost effectiveness of dialysis modalities: a systematic review of economic evaluations. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2019;17:315–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pike E, Hamidi V, Ringerike T, Wisloff T, Klemp M. More use of peritoneal dialysis gives significant savings: a systematic review and health economic decision model. J Clin Med Res. 2017;9:104–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wong CKH, Chen J, Fung SKS, Mok MMY, Cheng YL, Kong I, et al. Direct and indirect costs of end-stage renal disease patients in the first and second years after initiation of nocturnal home haemodialysis, hospital haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2019;34:1565–76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Salonen T, Reina T, Oksa H, Rissanen P, Pasternack A. Alternative strategies to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis. Int Urol Nephrol. 2007;39:289–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Yang F, Lau T, Luo N. Cost-effectiveness of haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis for patients with end-stage renal disease in Singapore. Nephrology (Carlton). 2016;21:669–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We would like to thank all staffs and data collectors from Cikini Hospital, Hasan Sadikin Hospital, and Tarakan Hospital. We also thank the Center for Health Financing and Department, Ministry of Health Republic of Indonesia and PERNEFRI (Indonesia Association of Nephrology) who provided insightful inputs during our initial dissemination from this study.


This study was funded by Baxter Indonesia with agreement letter CHEPS-18122015/Baxter. Baxter Indonesia had no intervention on study design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation. The funder also had no role for influencing the result and discussion in this paper. All authors worked independently for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



Study concept and design: SP, HT, DE; Data supervision: SP, NI, HH, HT; Costs and utility data analysis: EP, NI, HH; Modeling and analysis: SP, RN; Drafting manuscript: SP, RN, AA; Critical review and revision of manuscript: EP, HT, NI, HH, DE, AA. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Septiara Putri.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was conducted in accordance with the Guidelines and regulations of the Declaration of Helsinki's Principles. Official permission was granted and received from Cikini Hospital, Dharmais, Hasan Sadikin Hospital, and Tarakan Hospital. We obtained all written and signed informed consent from all participants in this study.

Consent to publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declared that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1. Table S1.

Patient characteristics. Figure S1. Schematic Markov model. Table S2. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Putri, S., Nugraha, R.R., Pujiyanti, E. et al. Supporting dialysis policy for end stage renal disease (ESRD) in Indonesia: an updated cost-effectiveness model. BMC Res Notes 15, 359 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI:


  • Peritoneal dialysis
  • Hemodialysis
  • End stage renal disease
  • Cost-effectiveness