The Medical Costs of Determining Eligibility and Waiting for a Kidney Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Recent efforts to increase access to kidney transplant (KTx) in the United States include increasing referrals to transplant programs, leading to more pretransplant services. Transplant programs reconcile the costs of these services through the Organ Acquisition Cost Center (OACC). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the costs associated with pretransplant services by applying microeconomic methods to OACC costs reported by transplant hospitals. RESEARCH DESIGN, SUBJECTS, AND MEASURES: For all US adult kidney transplant hospitals from 2013 through 2018 (n=193), we crosslinked the total OACC costs (at the hospital-fiscal year level) to proxy measures of volumes of pretransplant services. We used a multiple-output cost function, regressing total OACC costs against proxy measures for volumes of pretransplant services and adjusting for patient characteristics, to calculate the marginal cost of each pretransplant service. RESULTS: Over 1015 adult hospital-years, median OACC costs attributable to the pretransplant services were $5 million. Marginal costs for the pretransplant services were: initial transplant evaluation, $9k per waitlist addition; waitlist management, $2k per patient-year on the waitlist; deceased donor offer management, $1k per offer; living donor evaluation, procurement and follow-up: $26k per living donor. Longer time on dialysis among patients added to the waitlist was associated with higher OACC costs at the transplant hospital. CONCLUSIONS: To achieve the policy goals of more access to KTx, sufficient funding is needed to support the increase in volume of pretransplant services. Future studies should assess the relative value of each service and explore ways to enhance efficiency.

Living Donor Decision-Making and the Complex Interplay of Finances and Other Motivators, Barriers, and Facilitators.

INTRODUCTION: The decision to become a living donor requires consideration of a complex, interactive array of factors that could be targeted for clinical, policy, and educational interventions. Our objective was to assess how financial barriers interact with motivators, other barriers, and facilitators during this process. METHODS: Data were obtained from a public survey assessing motivators, barriers, and facilitators of living donation. We used multivariable logistic regression and consensus k-means clustering to assess interactions between financial concerns and other considerations in the decision-making process. RESULTS: Among 1592 respondents, the average age was 43; 74% were female and 14% and 6% identified as Hispanic and Black, respectively. Among employed respondents (72%), 40% indicated that they would not be able to donate without lost wage reimbursement. Stronger agreement with worries about expenses and dependent care challenges was associated with not being able to donate without lost wage reimbursement (OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.0-1.3; OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.1-1.3, respectively). Four respondent clusters were identified. Cluster 1 had strong motivators and facilitators with minimal barriers. Cluster 2 had barriers related to health concerns, nervousness, and dependent care. Clusters 3 and 4 had financial barriers. Cluster 3 also had anxiety related to surgery and dependent care. CONCLUSIONS: Financial barriers interact primarily with health and dependent care concerns when considering living organ donation. Targeted interventions to reduce financial barriers and improve provider communication regarding donation-related risks are needed.

Public Opinions on Removing Disincentives and Introducing Incentives for Organ Donation: Proposing a European Research Agenda.

The shortage of organs for transplantations is increasing in Europe as well as globally. Many initiatives to the organ shortage, such as opt-out systems for deceased donation and expanding living donation, have been insufficient to meet the rising demand for organs. In recurrent discussions on how to reduce organ shortage, financial incentives and removal of disincentives, have been proposed to stimulate living organ donation and increase the pool of available donor organs. It is important to understand not only the ethical acceptability of (dis)incentives for organ donation, but also its societal acceptance. In this review, we propose a research agenda to help guide future empirical studies on public preferences in Europe towards the removal of disincentives and introduction of incentives for organ donation. We first present a systematic literature review on public opinions concerning (financial) (dis)incentives for organ donation in European countries. Next, we describe the results of a randomized survey experiment conducted in the United States. This experiment is crucial because it suggests that societal support for incentivizing organ donation depends on the specific features and institutional design of the proposed incentive scheme. We conclude by proposing this experiment's framework as a blueprint for European research on this topic.

Global kidney chains.

Kidney failure is a worldwide scourge, made more lethal by the shortage of transplants. We propose a way to organize kidney exchange chains internationally between middle-income countries with financial barriers to transplantation and high-income countries with many hard to match patients and patient-donor pairs facing lengthy dialysis. The proposal involves chains of exchange that begin in the middle-income country and end in the high-income country. We also propose a way of financing such chains using savings to US health care payers.

Popular repugnance contrasts with legal bans on controversial markets.

We study popular attitudes in Germany, Spain, the Philippines, and the United States toward three controversial markets-prostitution, surrogacy, and global kidney exchange (GKE). Of those markets, only prostitution is banned in the United States and the Philippines, and only prostitution is allowed in Germany and Spain. Unlike prostitution, majorities support legalization of surrogacy and GKE in all four countries. So, there is not a simple relation between public support for markets, or bans, and their legal and regulatory status. Because both markets and bans on markets require social support to work well, this sheds light on the prospects for effective regulation of controversial markets.

The economic impact of machine perfusion technology in liver transplantation.

INTRODUCTION: Several clinical studies have demonstrated the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of machine perfusion in liver transplantation, although its economic outcomes are still underexplored. This review aimed to examine the costs related to machine perfusion and its associated outcomes. METHODS: Expert opinion of several groups representing different machine perfusion modalities. Critical analysis of the published literature reporting the economic outcomes of the most used techniques of machine perfusion in liver transplantation (normothermic and hypothermic ex situ machine perfusion and in situ normothermic regional perfusion). RESULTS: Machine perfusion costs include disposable components of the perfusion device, perfusate components, personnel and facility fees, and depreciation of the perfusion device or device lease fee. The limited current literature suggests that although this upfront cost varies between perfusion modalities, its use is highly likely to be cost-effective. Optimization of the donor liver utilization rate, local conditions of transplant programs (long waiting list times and higher MELD scores), a decreased rate of complications, changes in logistics, and length of hospital stay are potential cost savings points that must highlight the expected benefits of this intervention. An additional unaccounted factor is that machine perfusion optimizing donor organ utilization allows patients to be transplanted earlier, avoiding clinical deterioration while on the waiting list and the costs associated with hospital admissions and other required procedures. CONCLUSION: So far, the clinical benefits have guided machine perfusion implementation in liver transplantation. Albeit there is data suggesting the economic benefit of the technique, further investigation of its costs to healthcare systems and society and associated outcomes is needed.

Economic Consequences of Adult Living Kidney Donation: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Current guidelines mandate organ donation to be financially neutral such that it neither rewards nor exploits donors. This systematic review was conducted to assess the magnitude and type of costs incurred by adult living kidney donors and to identify those at risk of financial hardship. METHODS: We searched English-language journal articles and working papers assessing direct and indirect costs incurred by donors on PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, the National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database, Research Papers in Economics, and EconLit in 2005 and thereafter. Estimates of total costs, types of costs, and characteristics of donors who incurred the financial burden were extracted. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were identified involving 6158 donors. Average donor-borne costs ranged from US$900 to US$19 900 (2019 values) over the period from predonation evaluation to the end of the first postoperative year. Less than half of donors sought financial assistance and 80% had financial loss. Out-of-pocket payments for travel and health services were the most reported items where lost income accounted for the largest proportion (23.2%-83.7%) of total costs. New indirect cost items were identified to be insurance difficulty, exercise impairment, and caregiver income loss. Donors from lower-income households and those who traveled long distances reported the greatest financial hardship. CONCLUSIONS: Most kidney donors are undercompensated. Our findings highlight gaps in donor compensation for predonation evaluation, long-distance donations, and lifetime insurance protection. Additional studies outside of North America are needed to gain a global prospective on how to provide for financial neutrality for kidney donors.

Best practices to optimize utilization of the National Living Donor Assistance Center for the financial assistance of living organ donors.

Living organ donors face direct costs when donating an organ, including transportation, lodging, meals, and lost wages. For those most in need, the National Living Donor Assistance Center (NLDAC) provides reimbursement to defray travel and subsistence costs associated with living donor evaluation, surgery, and follow-up. While this program currently supports 9% of all US living donors, there is tremendous variability in its utilization across US transplant centers, which may limit patient access to living donor transplantation. Based on feedback from the transplant community, NLDAC convened a Best Practices Workshop on August 2, 2018, in Arlington, VA, to identify strategies to optimize transplant program utilization of this valuable resource. Attendees included team members from transplant centers that are high NLDAC users; the NLDAC program team; and Advisory Group members. After a robust review of NLDAC data and engagement in group discussions, the workgroup identified concrete best practices for administrative and transplant center leadership involvement; for individuals filing NLDAC applications at transplant centers; and to improve patient education about potential financial barriers to living organ donation. Multiple opportunities were identified for intervention to increase transplant programs' NLDAC utilization and reduce financial burdens inhibiting expansion of living donor transplantation in the United States.

Modeling the economic benefit of targeted mild hypothermia in deceased donor kidney transplantation.

Delayed graft function (DGF) in kidney transplant significantly increases inpatient and outpatient cost. Targeted, mild hypothermia in organ donors after neurologic determination of death significantly reduced the rate of DGF in a recent randomized controlled clinical trial. To assess the potential economic benefit of national implementation of donor hypothermia, rates of reduction DGF were combined with estimates of the impact of DGF on hospital cost and total health expenditure for standard and extended criteria donor organs (SCD and ECD). DGF increases the cost of the transplant episode by $9487 for ECD transplant and $10 342 for SCD transplant. Medicare recipients with DGF incur an additional $18 513 spending for ECD and $14 948 in SCD transplants over the first year. An absolute reduction in DGF rate after kidney transplantation consistent with trial results (ECD 25%, SCD 7%) has the potential to lower annual hospital cost for kidney transplant by $13 178 746 and annual Medicare spending by $20 970 706 compared to standard donor management practice using static cold storage. Targeted mild hypothermia improves care of renal transplant patients by safely reducing DGF rates in both ECD and SCD transplant. Broader application of this safe, effective, and low-cost intervention could reduce healthcare expenditures for providers and insurers.

Lung transplantation and Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion in the era of lung allocation score - a retrospective study.

This study evaluated the impact of Medicaid eligibility expansion (ME) on lung transplant (LT) listings and Medicaid coverage. Data on LT candidates aged 18-64 were obtained from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (N = 9153). The impact of ME was evaluated by comparing LT listings in 2011-2013 with listings in 2014-2016, as well as comparing states that had and had not adopted ME in 2014. LT listings increased by 7.7% nationally post-ME. In ME states, LT listings increased by 15.2%, whereas nonexpansion states decreased by 1.5%. LT candidates with Medicaid increased after ME nationally (8.3% vs. 9.9%, P = 0.006) and in ME states (9.7% vs. 11.5%, P = 0.036), but not in nonexpansion states (6.6% vs. 7.7%, P = 0.170). Following multivariable adjustment, LT listings in ME states had 58% greater odds for Medicaid compared to nonexpansion states (P < 0.001). Expansion of Medicaid provided greater healthcare access and increased LT listings, but only within states that adopted eligibility expansion.

Will more organs save more lives? Cost-effectiveness and the ethics of expanding organ procurement.

The assumption that procuring more organs will save more lives has inspired increasingly forceful calls to increase organ procurement. This project, in contrast, directly questions the premise that more organ transplantation means more lives saved. Its argument begins with the fact that resources are limited and medical procedures have opportunity costs. Because many other lifesaving interventions are more cost-effective than transplantation and compete with transplantation for a limited budget, spending on organ transplantation consumes resources that could have been used to save a greater number of other lives. This argument has not yet been advanced in debates over expanded procurement and could buttress existing concerns about expanded procurement. To support this argument, I review existing empirical data on the cost-effectiveness of transplantation and compare them to data on interventions for other illnesses. These data should motivate utilitarians and others whose primary goal is maximizing population-wide health benefits to doubt the merits of expanding organ procurement. I then consider two major objections: one makes the case that transplant candidates have a special claim to medical resources, and the other challenges the use of cost-effectiveness to set priorities. I argue that there is no reason to conclude that transplant candidates' medical interests should receive special priority, and that giving some consideration to cost-effectiveness in priority setting requires neither sweeping changes to overall health priorities nor the adoption of any specific, controversial metric for assessing cost-effectiveness. Before searching for more organs, we should first ensure the provision of cost-effective care.

Financial Costs Incurred by Living Kidney Donors: A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 40% of the kidneys for transplant worldwide come from living donors. Despite advantages of living donor transplants, rates have stagnated in recent years. One possible barrier may be costs related to the transplant process that potential willing donors may incur for travel, parking, accommodation, and lost productivity. METHODS: To better understand and quantify the financial costs incurred by living kidney donors, we conducted a prospective cohort study, recruiting 912 living kidney donors from 12 transplant centers across Canada between 2009 and 2014; 821 of them completed all or a portion of the costing survey. We report microcosted total, out-of-pocket, and lost productivity costs (in 2016 Canadian dollars) for living kidney donors from donor evaluation start to 3 months after donation. We examined costs according to (1) the donor's relationship with their recipient, including spousal (donation to a partner), emotionally related nonspousal (friend, step-parent, in law), or genetically related; and (2) donation type (directed, paired kidney, or nondirected). RESULTS: Living kidney donors incurred a median (75th percentile) of $1254 ($2589) in out-of-pocket costs and $0 ($1908) in lost productivity costs. On average, total costs were $2226 higher in spousal compared with emotionally related nonspousal donors (P=0.02) and $1664 higher in directed donors compared with nondirected donors (P<0.001). Total costs (out-of-pocket and lost productivity) exceeded $5500 for 205 (25%) donors. CONCLUSIONS: Our results can be used to inform strategies to minimize the financial burden of living donation, which may help improve the donation experience and increase the number of living donor kidney transplants.

Radical actions to address UK organ shortage, enacting Iran's paid donation programme: A discussion paper.

Globally there is a shortage of organs available for transplant resulting in thousands of lives lost as a result. Recently in the United Kingdom 457 people died as a result of organ shortage in just 1 year. 1 NHS Blood and Transplant suggest national debates to test public attitudes to radical actions to increase organ donation should be considered in addressing organ shortage. The selling of organs for transplant in the United Kingdom is prohibited under the Human Tissue Act 2004. This discussion paper considers five ethical objections raised in the United Kingdom to paid donation and discusses how these objections are addressed within the only legal and regulated paid living unrelated renal donation programme in the world in Iran, where its kidney transplant list was eliminated within 2 years of its commencement. This article discusses whether paid living unrelated donation in Iran increases riskier donations and reduced altruistic donation as opponents of paid donation claim. The paper debates whether objections to paid donation based upon commodification arguments only oppose enabling financial ends, even if these ends enable beneficent acts. Discussions in relation to whether valid consent can be given by the donor will take place and will also debate the objection that donors will be coerced and exploited by a paid model. This article suggests that exploitation of the paid donor within the Iranian model exists within the legally permitted framework. However, paid living kidney donation should be discussed further and other models of paid donation considered in the United Kingdom as a radical means of increasing donation.

The finances of a liver transplant program.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The current review provides an overarching examination of liver transplant finances and factors contributing to cost of care. RECENT FINDINGS: Transplant hospitals must seek to optimize areas of revenue and cut costs as the cost of transplantation continues to rise and public policies strain reimbursement. SUMMARY: Transplantation remains a complicated multipayor system that requires focused attention and care. With rising costs and increased focus on quality in the healthcare market, it is integral that both the clinical and business teams work together to strive for optimization of costs and revenue.

Financial compensation for organ donors.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: With an increasing demand for donor organs, strategies to increase the number of available donor organs have become more focused. Compensating donors for donation is one strategy proposed to increase the availability of organs for transplant. This has been implemented in several systems internationally, but debate continues in the United States with respect to appropriate strategies. The National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) currently prohibits the transfer of any human organ 'for valuable consideration' for transplantation, but allows for the removal of financial disincentives. RECENT FINDINGS: Several proposals currently exist for compensating patients for living donation. Recent data have focused on studying and creating mechanisms for reimbursement of costs incurred as part of the donation process, which is related to the removal of disincentives to living donation. Others have advocated for the provision of actual incentives to patients for the act of donating, in an attempt to further expand living donation. The current debate focuses on what measures can reasonably be taken to increase donation, and whether additional incentives will encourage more donation or reduce the motivation for altruistic donation. SUMMARY: Currently, the transplant community broadly supports the removal of disincentives for living donors, including reimbursement of expenses for travel, housing and lost wages incurred during evaluation, surgery and after care. Others have advocated for financial incentives to further increase the number of donor organs available for transplant. Although the removal of disincentives is currently allowed under the existing legal structure of NOTA, providing financial incentives for living donation would require further evaluation of the economics, law, ethics and public readiness for a significant policy shift.

OPTN/SRTR 2016 Annual Data Report: Economics.

Medicare costs vary for solid organ transplant recipients by outcome: survival with graft function, survival with graft failure, and death. Average per-person per-year reimbursement was $75 thousand for kidney recipients who survived the first year posttransplant with a functioning graft, $171 thousand for those who required a return to dialysis or retransplant, and $350 thousand for those who died with function. For pancreas recipients: $105 thousand for those who survived the first year with a functioning graft, $120 thousand for those who survived pancreas failure, and $443 thousand for those who died with function. For liver recipients: $154 thousand for those who survived with a functioning graft, $388 thousand for those who required retransplant, and $740 thousand who died with function. For intestine recipients: $301 thousand for those who survived with a functioning graft and $1 million for those who died with function. For heart recipients: $272 thousand for those who survived with a functioning graft and $1.2 million for those who died with function. For lung recipients: $196 thousand for those who survived with a functioning graft, $642 thousand for those who required retransplant, and $761 thousand for those who died with function.

An economic assessment of contemporary kidney transplant practice.

Kidney transplantation is the optimal therapy for end-stage renal disease, prolonging survival and reducing spending. Prior economic analyses of kidney transplantation, using Markov models, have generally assumed compatible, low-risk donors. The economic implications of transplantation with high Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) deceased donors, ABO incompatible living donors, and HLA incompatible living donors have not been assessed. The costs of transplantation and dialysis were compared with the use of discrete event simulation over a 10-year period, with data from the United States Renal Data System, University HealthSystem Consortium, and literature review. Graft failure rates and expenditures were adjusted for donor characteristics. All transplantation options were associated with improved survival compared with dialysis (transplantation: 5.20-6.34 quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] vs dialysis: 4.03 QALYs). Living donor and low-KDPI deceased donor transplantations were cost-saving compared with dialysis, while transplantations using high-KDPI deceased donor, ABO-incompatible or HLA-incompatible living donors were cost-effective (<$100 000 per QALY). Predicted costs per QALY range from $39 939 for HLA-compatible living donor transplantation to $80 486 for HLA-incompatible donors compared with $72 476 for dialysis. In conclusion, kidney transplantation is cost-effective across all donor types despite higher costs for marginal organs and innovative living donor practices.

Functional status, healthcare utilization, and the costs of liver transplantation.

The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score predicts higher transplant healthcare utilization and costs; however, the independent contribution of functional status towards costs is understudied. The study objective was to evaluate the association between functional status, as measured by Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), and liver transplant (LT) costs in the first posttransplant year. In a cohort of 598 LT recipients from July 1, 2009 to November 30, 2014, multivariable models assessed associations between KPS and outcomes. LT recipients needing full assistance (KPS 10%-40%) vs being independent (KPS 80%-100%) were more likely to be discharged to a rehabilitation facility after LT (22% vs 3%) and be rehospitalized within the first posttransplant year (78% vs 57%), all P < .001. In adjusted generalized linear models, in addition to MELD (P < .001), factors independently associated with higher 1-year post-LT transplant costs were older age, poor functional status (KPS 10%-40%), living donor LT, pre-LT hemodialysis, and the donor risk index (all P < .001). One-year survival for patients in the top cost decile was 83% vs 93% for the rest of the cohort (log rank P < .001). Functional status is an important determinant of posttransplant resource utilization; therefore, standardized measurements of functional status should be considered to optimize candidate selection and outcomes.

Return on investment for financial assistance for living kidney donors in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The National Living Donor Assistance Center (NLDAC) enables living donor kidney transplants through financial assistance of living donors, but its return on investment (ROI) through savings on dialysis costs remains unknown. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 2012-2015 data from NLDAC, the United States Renal Data System, and the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients to construct 1-, 3-, and 5-year ROI models based on NLDAC applications and national dialysis and transplant cost data. ROI was defined as state-specific federal dialysis cost minus (NLDAC program costs plus state-specific transplant cost), adjusted for median waiting time (WT). RESULTS: A total of 2425 NLDAC applications were approved, and NLDAC costs were USD $6.76 million. Median donor age was 41 years, 66.1% were female, and median income was $33 759; 43.6% were evaluated at centers with WT >72 months. Median dialysis cost/patient-year was $81 485 (IQR $74 489-$89 802). Median kidney transplant cost/patient-year was $30 101 (IQR $26 832-$33 916). Overall, ROI varied from 5.1-fold (1-year) to 28.2-fold (5-year), resulting in $256 million in savings. Higher ROI was significantly associated with high WT, larger dialysis and transplant costs differences, and more NLDAC applicants completing the donation process. CONCLUSIONS: Financial support for donor out-of-pocket expenses produces dramatic federal savings through incremental living donor kidney transplants.

Choice, pressure and markets in kidneys.

We do not always benefit from the expansion of our choice sets. This is because some options change the context in which we must make decisions in ways that render us worse off than we would have been otherwise. One promising argument against paid living kidney donation holds that having the option of selling a 'spare' kidney would impact people facing financial pressures in precisely this way. I defend this argument from two related criticisms: first, that having the option to sell one's kidney would only be harmful if one is pressured or coerced to take this specific course of action; and second, that such forms of pressure are unlikely to feature in a legal market.