A cost comparison of liver acquisition fees for donation after circulatory death versus donation after brain death donors.

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors now represent over 30% of the deceased donor pool in the United States. Compared to donation after brain death, DCD is less likely to result in transplantation. For each potential donor whose organs cannot be utilized for transplantation (ie, dry run), fees are associated with the attempted donation, which add to the overall costs of organ acquisition. To better characterize the true costs of DCD liver acquisition, we performed a cost comparison of the fees associated with organ acquisition for DCD versus donation after brain death at a single transplant institute that comprises 2 liver transplant centers. Cost, recipient, and transportation data for all cases, including fees associated with liver acquisition from July 1, 2019, to October 31, 2021, were collected. We found that the total cost of DCD liver acquisition per liver transplant was $15,029 more than that for donation after brain death donation, with 18% of the costs of the DCD transplant attributed to dry runs. Overall, the costs associated with DCD transplantation accounted for 34.5% of the total organ acquisition costs; however, DCD transplantation accounted for 30.3% of the transplantation volume. Because the expansion of DCD is essential to increasing the availability of liver grafts for transplantation, strategies need to be implemented to decrease the costs associated with dry runs, including using local recovery, transferring donors to hospitals close to transplant centers, and performing more prerecovery organ analysis. Moreover, these strategies are needed to ensure that financial disincentives to DCD procurement and utilization do not reverse the gains made by expanding the organ donor pool using machine perfusion technologies.

Cost Analysis of Liver Acquisition Fees Before and After Acuity Circle Policy Implementation.

Importance: Acuity circles (AC) liver allocation policy was implemented to eliminate donor service area geographic boundaries from liver allocation and to decrease variability in median Model of End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score at transplant and wait list mortality. However, the broader sharing of organs was also associated with more flights for organ procurements and higher costs associated with the increase in flights. Objective: To determine whether the costs associated with liver acquisition changed after the implementation of AC allocation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-center cost comparison study analyzed fees associated with organ acquisition before and after AC allocation implementation. The cost data were collected from a single transplant institute with 2 liver transplant centers, located 30 miles apart, in different donation service areas. Cost, recipient, and transportation data for all cases that included fees associated with liver acquisition from July 1, 2019, to October 31, 2020, were collected. Exposures: Primary liver offer acceptance with associated organ procurement organization or charter flight fees. Main Outcomes and Measures: Specific fees (organ acquisition, surgeon, import, and charter flight fees) and total fees per donor were collected for all accepted liver donors with at least 1 associated fee during the study period. Results: Of 213 included donors, 171 were used for transplant; 90 of 171 (52.6%) were male, and the median (interquartile range) age of donors was 41.0 (30.0-52.8) years in the pre-AC period and 36.9 (24.0-48.8) years in the post-AC period. There was no significant difference in the post-AC compared with pre-AC period in median (range) MELD score (24 [8-40] vs 25 [6-40]; P = .27) or median (range) match run sequence (15 [1-3951] vs 10 [1-1138]; P = .31), nor in mean (SD) distance traveled (155.83 [157.00] vs 140.54 [144.33] nautical miles; P = .32) or percentage of donors requiring flights (58.5% [69 of 118] vs 56.8% [54 of 95]; P = .82). However, costs increased significantly in the post-AC period: total cost increased 16% per accepted donor (mean [SD] of $52 966 [13 278] vs $45 725 [9300]; P < .001) and 55% per declined donor (mean [SD] of $15 865 [3942] vs $10 217 [4853]; P < .001). Contributing factors included more than 2-fold increases in the proportions of donors incurring import fees (31.4% [37 of 118] vs 12.6% [12 of 95]; P = .002) and surgeon fees (19.5% [23 of 118] vs 9.5% [9 of 95]; P = .05), increased acquisition fees (10% increase; mean [SD] of $43 860 [3266] vs $39 980 [2236]; P < .001), and increased flight expenses (43% increase; mean [SD] of $12 904 [6066] vs $9049 [5140]; P = .002). Conclusions and Relevance: The unintended consequences of implementing broader sharing without addressing organ acquisition fees to account for increased importation between organ procurement organizations must be remedied to contain costs and ensure viability of transplant programs.

Centering inclusivity in the design of online conferences-An OHBM-Open Science perspective.

As the global health crisis unfolded, many academic conferences moved online in 2020. This move has been hailed as a positive step towards inclusivity in its attenuation of economic, physical, and legal barriers and effectively enabled many individuals from groups that have traditionally been underrepresented to join and participate. A number of studies have outlined how moving online made it possible to gather a more global community and has increased opportunities for individuals with various constraints, e.g., caregiving responsibilities. Yet, the mere existence of online conferences is no guarantee that everyone can attend and participate meaningfully. In fact, many elements of an online conference are still significant barriers to truly diverse participation: the tools used can be inaccessible for some individuals; the scheduling choices can favour some geographical locations; the set-up of the conference can provide more visibility to well-established researchers and reduce opportunities for early-career researchers. While acknowledging the benefits of an online setting, especially for individuals who have traditionally been underrepresented or excluded, we recognize that fostering social justice requires inclusivity to actively be centered in every aspect of online conference design. Here, we draw from the literature and from our own experiences to identify practices that purposefully encourage a diverse community to attend, participate in, and lead online conferences. Reflecting on how to design more inclusive online events is especially important as multiple scientific organizations have announced that they will continue offering an online version of their event when in-person conferences can resume.