Summary of literature on mortality and progression to ESRD in CKD stage 4.

<p>*crude data in percentages, over 66 months of follow up.</p>†<p>crude 1 year data in percentages.</p>‡<p>Age-Standardized Rates.</p><p>PY: patient-years.</p><p>HMO: Health Maintenance Oraganization.</p

Two-way sensitivity analysis plotting rate of progression to dialysis and probability of steal: This demonstrates that the wait strategy results in a higher quality-adjusted life expectancy at lower rates of progression and lower probablility of ischemic steal and the AVF strategy results in a higher quality adjusted life expectancy at higher rates of progression of CKD to dialysis and higher rates of ischemic steal.

<p>Two-way sensitivity analysis plotting rate of progression to dialysis and probability of steal: This demonstrates that the wait strategy results in a higher quality-adjusted life expectancy at lower rates of progression and lower probablility of ischemic steal and the AVF strategy results in a higher quality adjusted life expectancy at higher rates of progression of CKD to dialysis and higher rates of ischemic steal.</p

Incremental outcomes and strategy selection frequency with the probabilistic sensitivity analysis using a Monte Carlo simulation.

<p>Incremental outcomes and strategy selection frequency with the probabilistic sensitivity analysis using a Monte Carlo simulation.</p

Results of base case analysis.

<p>Results of base case analysis.</p

Schematic representation of the decision-analysis model.

<p>Schematic representation of the decision-analysis model.</p

Probabilities and Utilities.

<p>Probabilities and Utilities.</p

Summary of literature on difference in mortality with CVC and AVF.

<p>*Adapted from Adjusted patient survival data.</p>†<p>Hazard ratio, compared to mortality with AVF.</p>‡<p>Six month follow up data.</p><p>PY: patient-years.</p

Equity.

<p>Equity.</p

Efficiency frontiers when the cost of the mobile surgical unit is increased.

<p>A) Deaths averted per 100,000 people. B) Catastrophic expenditure averted per 100,000 people. C) Impoverishment averted per 100,000 people. The platform falls off the efficiency frontier for the financial risk protective outcomes.</p

Health and financial risk protection per $100,000 spent.

<p>Policies closest to the upper right are most efficient. A) Deaths averted vs. catastrophic expenditure averted. B) Deaths averted vs. impoverishment averted. For both financial risk protection outcomes, the mobile surgical unit is dominant. Note that negative cases of catastrophic risk protection and impoverishment averted imply cases <i>created</i> by the respective policies. UPF = universal public finance. TS = task shifting. V = vouchers. MS = mobile surgical unit. CH = cancer hospital. 2W = two-week surgical mission. The interpretation of these standardized outcomes panels is explained in detail in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0168867#pone.0168867.s001" target="_blank">S1 Appendix</a>.</p