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.

Association of Pretransplant Coronary Heart Disease Testing With Early Kidney Transplant Outcomes.

Importance: Testing for coronary heart disease (CHD) in asymptomatic kidney transplant candidates before transplant is widespread and endorsed by various professional societies, but its association with perioperative outcomes is unclear. Objective: To estimate the association of pretransplant CHD testing with rates of death and myocardial infarction (MI). Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included all adult, first-time kidney transplant recipients from January 2000 through December 2014 in the US Renal Data System with at least 1 year of Medicare enrollment before and after transplant. An instrumental variable (IV) analysis was used, with the program-level CHD testing rate in the year of the transplant as the IV. Analyses were stratified by study period, as the rate of CHD testing varied over time. A combination of US Renal Data System variables and Medicare claims was used to ascertain exposure, IV, covariates, and outcomes. Exposures: Receipt of nonurgent invasive or noninvasive CHD testing during the 12 months preceding kidney transplant. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of death or acute MI within 30 days of after kidney transplant. Results: The cohort comprised 79 334 adult, first-time kidney transplant recipients (30 147 women [38%]; 25 387 [21%] Black and 48 394 [61%] White individuals; mean [SD] age of 56 [14] years during 2012 to 2014). The primary outcome occurred in 4604 patients (244 [5.3%]; 120 [2.6%] death, 134 [2.9%] acute MI). During the most recent study period (2012-2014), the CHD testing rate was 56% in patients in the most test-intensive transplant programs (fifth IV quintile) and 24% in patients at the least test-intensive transplant program (first IV quintile, P < .001); this pattern was similar across other study periods. In the main IV analysis, compared with no testing, CHD testing was not associated with a change in the rate of primary outcome (rate difference, 1.9%; 95% CI, 0%-3.5%). The results were similar across study periods, except for 2000 to 2003, during which CHD testing was associated with a higher event rate (rate difference, 6.8%; 95% CI, 1.8%-12.0%). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cohort study suggest that pretransplant CHD testing was not associated with a reduction in early posttransplant death or acute MI. The study findings potentially challenge the ubiquity of CHD testing before kidney transplant and should be confirmed in interventional studies.

Trends in Coronary Artery Disease Screening before Kidney Transplantation.

Background: Coronary artery disease (CAD) screening in asymptomatic kidney transplant candidates is widespread but not well supported by contemporary cardiology literature. In this study we describe temporal trends in CAD screening before kidney transplant in the United States. Methods: Using the United States Renal Data System, we examined Medicare-insured adults who received a first kidney transplant from 2000 through 2015. We stratified analysis on the basis of whether the patient's comorbidity burden met guideline definitions of high risk for CAD. We examined temporal trends in nonurgent CAD tests within the year before transplant and the composite of death and nonfatal myocardial infarction in the 30 days after transplant. Results: Of 94,832 kidney transplant recipients, 37,139 (39%) underwent at least one nonurgent CAD test in the 1 year before transplant. From 2000 to 2015, the transplant program waitlist volume had increased as transplant volume stayed constant, whereas patients in the later eras had a slightly higher comorbidity burden (older, longer dialysis vintage, and a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus and CAD). The likelihood of CAD test in the year before transplant increased from 2000 through 2003 and remained relatively stable thereafter. When stratified by CAD risk status, test rates decreased modestly in patients who were high risk but remained constant in patients who were low risk after 2008. Death or nonfatal myocardial infarction within 30 days after transplant decreased from 3% in 2000 to 2% in 2015. Nuclear perfusion scan was the most frequent modality of testing throughout the examined time periods. Conclusions: CAD testing rates before kidney transplantation have remained constant from 2000 through 2015, despite widespread changes in cardiology guidelines and practice.

Trends in Cost Attributable to Kidney Transplantation Evaluation and Waiting List Management in the United States, 2012-2017.

Importance: While recent policy reforms aim to improve access to kidney transplantation for patients with end-stage kidney disease, the cost implications of kidney waiting list expansion are not well understood. The Organ Acquisition Cost Center (OACC) is the mechanism by which Medicare reimburses kidney transplantation programs, at cost, for costs attributable to kidney transplantation evaluation and waiting list management, but these costs have not been well described to date. Objectives: To describe temporal trends in mean OACC costs per kidney transplantation and to identify factors most associated with cost. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation included all kidney transplantation waiting list candidates and recipients in the United States from 2012 to 2017. A population-based study of cost center reports was conducted using data from all Center of Medicare & Medicaid-certified transplantation hospitals. Data analysis was conducted from June to August 2021. Exposures: Year, local price index, transplantation and waiting list volume of transplantation program, and comorbidity burden. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mean OACC costs per kidney transplantation. Results: In 1335 hospital-years from 2012 through 2017, Medicare's share of OACC costs increased from $0.95 billion in 2012 to $1.32 billion in 2017 (3.7% of total Medicare End-Stage Renal Disease program expenditure). Median (IQR) OACC costs per transplantation increased from $81 000 ($66 000 to $103 000) in 2012 to $100 000 ($82 000 to $125 000) in 2017. Kidney organ procurement costs contributed to 36% of mean OACC costs per transplantation throughout the study period. During the study period, transplantation hospitals experienced increases in kidney waiting list volume, kidney waiting list active volume, kidney transplantation volume, and comorbidity burden. For a median-sized transplantation program, mean OACC costs per transplantation decreased with more transplants (-$3500 [95% CI, -$4300 to -$2700] per 10 transplants; P < .001) and increased with year ($4400 [95% CI, $3500 to $5300] per year; P < .001), local price index ($1900 [95% CI, $200 to $3700] per 10-point increase; P = .03), patients listed active on the waiting list ($3100 [95% CI, $1700 to $4600] per 100 patients; P < .001), and patients on the waiting list with high comorbidities ($1500 [9% CI, $600 to $2500] per 1% increase in proportion of waitlisted patients with the highest comorbidity score; P = .002). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, OACC costs increased at 4% per year from 2012 to 2017 and were not solely attributable to the cost of organ procurement. Expanding the waiting list will likely contribute to further increases in the mean OACC costs per transplantation and substantially increase Medicare liability.

Optimal patient selection for simultaneous heart-kidney transplant: A modified cost-effectiveness analysis.

Increasing rates of simultaneous heart-kidney (SHK) transplant in the United States exacerbate the overall shortage of deceased donor kidneys (DDK). Current allocation policy does not impose constraints on SHK eligibility, and how best to do so remains unknown. We apply a decision-analytic model to evaluate options for heart transplant (HT) candidates with comorbid kidney dysfunction. We compare SHK with a "Safety Net" strategy, in which DDK transplant is performed 6 months after HT, only if native kidneys do not recover. We identify patient subsets for whom SHK using a DDK is efficient, considering the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains from DDKs instead allocated for kidney transplant-only. For an average-aged candidate with a 50% probability of kidney recovery after HT-only, SHK produces 0.64 more QALYs than Safety Net at a cost of 0.58 more kidneys used. SHK is inefficient in this scenario, producing fewer QALYs per DDK used (1.1) than a DDK allocated for KT-only (2.2). SHK is preferred to Safety Net only for candidates with a lower probability of native kidney recovery (24%-38%, varying by recipient age). This finding favors the implementation of a Safety Net provision and should inform the establishment of objective criteria for SHK transplant eligibility.

Racial Disparities in Pediatric Kidney Transplantation under the New Kidney Allocation System in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In December 2014, the Kidney Allocation System (KAS) was implemented to improve equity in access to transplantation, but preliminary studies in children show mixed results. Thus, we aimed to assess how the 2014 KAS policy change affected racial and ethnic disparities in pediatric kidney transplantation access and related outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of children <18 years of age active on the kidney transplant list from 2008 to 2019 using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Log-logistic accelerated failure time models were used to determine the time from first activation on the transplant list and the time on dialysis to deceased donor transplant, each with KAS era or race and ethnicity as the exposure of interest. We used logistic regression to assess odds of delayed graft function. Log-rank tests assessed time to graft loss within racial and ethnic groups across KAS eras. RESULTS: All children experienced longer wait times from activation to transplantation post-KAS. In univariable analysis, Black and Hispanic children and other children of color experienced longer times from activation to transplant compared with White children in both eras; this finding was largely attenuated after multivariable analysis (time ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.01 to 1.32; time ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.00 to 1.28; and time ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 1.41 post-KAS, respectively). Multivariable analysis also showed that racial and ethnic disparities in time from dialysis initiation to transplantation in the pre-KAS era were mitigated in the post-KAS era. There were no disparities in odds of delayed graft function. Black and Hispanic children experienced longer times with a functioning graft in the post-KAS era. CONCLUSIONS: No racial and ethnic disparities from activation to deceased donor transplantation were seen before or after implementation of the KAS in multivariable analysis, whereas time on dialysis to transplantation and odds of short-term graft loss improved in equity after the implementation of the KAS, without compromising disparities in delayed graft function. PODCAST: This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2021_12_07_CJN06740521.mp3.

The organ procurement costs of expanding deceased donor organ acceptance criteria: Evidence from a cost function model.

A potential solution to the deceased donor organ shortage is to expand donor acceptability criteria. The procurement cost implications of using nonstandard donors is unknown. Using 5 years of US organ procurement organization (OPO) data, we built a cost function model to make cost projections: the total cost was the dependent variable; production outputs, including the number of donors and organs procured, were the independent variables. In the model, procuring one kidney or procuring both kidneys from double/en bloc transplantation from a single-organ donor resulted in a marginal cost of $55 k (95% confidence interval [CI] $28 k, $99 k) per kidney, and procuring only the liver from a single-organ donor results in a marginal cost of $41 k (95% CI $12 k, $69 k) per liver. Procuring two kidneys for two candidates from a donor lowered the marginal cost to $36 k (95% CI $22 k, $66 k) per kidney, and procuring two kidneys and a liver lowers the marginal cost to $24 k (95% CI $17 k, $45 k) per organ. Economies of scale were observed, where high OPO volume was correlated with lower costs. Despite higher cost per organ than for standard donors, kidney transplantation from nonstandard donors remained cost-effective based on contemporary US data.

A new approach to kidney wait-list management in the kidney allocation system era: Pilot implementation and evaluation.

Kidney transplant wait-list management is becoming increasingly complex. We introduced a novel wait-list management strategy at our center, the Transplant Readiness Assessment Clinic (TRAC), whereby patients whose Kidney Allocation Scores surpass a threshold are actively managed. From January 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, we evaluated 195 patients through TRAC. Compared to pre-TRAC systems at our institution, TRAC resulted in a higher proportion of activation at 18 months (38% vs 22%-26%, P < 0.0001), despite being enriched in patients with long dialysis duration. TRAC also resulted in a higher proportion of wait-list removal (15% vs 8%-9%, P < 0.05) although combined wait-list removal and death on wait-list did not differ (18% vs 16%-17%). Median time to activation was 356 days from TRAC evaluation. Of the transplant barriers, need for cardiovascular studies was the most common (31%), followed by other medical issues (23%), poor functional status (13%), and psychosocial issues (10%). By concentrating center resources on patients most likely to be transplanted after activation and performing active patient management close to the time of transplant, TRAC has the potential to significantly enhance kidney transplant success in regions with long wait-times.

Comparing Simultaneous Liver-Kidney Transplant Strategies: A Modified Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The proportion of patients with kidney failure at time of liver transplantation is at a historic high in the United States. The optimal timing of kidney transplantation with respect to the liver transplant is unknown. METHODS: We used a modified cost-effectiveness analysis to compare 4 strategies: the old system ("pre-OPTN"), the new Organ Procurement Transplant Network (OPTN) system since August 10, 2017 ("OPTN"), and 2 strategies which restrict simultaneous liver-kidney transplants ("safety net" and "stringent"). We measured "cost" by deployment of deceased donor kidneys (DDKs) to liver transplant recipients and effectiveness by life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in liver transplant recipients. We validated our model against Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients data. RESULTS: The OPTN, safety net and stringent strategies were on the efficiency frontier. By rank order, OPTN > safety net > stringent strategy in terms of LY, QALY, and DDK deployment. The pre-OPTN system was dominated, or outperformed, by all alternative strategies. The incremental LY per DDK between the strategies ranged from 1.30 to 1.85. The incremental QALY per DDK ranged from 1.11 to 2.03. CONCLUSIONS: These estimates quantify the "organ"-effectiveness of various kidney allocation strategies for liver transplant candidates. The OPTN system will likely deliver better liver transplant outcomes at the expense of more frequent deployment of DDKs to liver transplant recipients.

Home Dialysis in the Prospective Payment System Era.

The ESRD Prospective Payment System introduced two incentives to increase home dialysis use: bundling injectable medications into a single payment for treatment and paying for home dialysis training. We evaluated the effects of the ESRD Prospective Payment System on home dialysis use by patients starting dialysis in the United States from January 1, 2006 to August 31, 2013. We analyzed data on dialysis modality, insurance type, and comorbidities from the United States Renal Data System. We estimated the effect of the policy on home dialysis use with multivariable logistic regression and compared the effect on Medicare Parts A/B beneficiaries with the effect on patients with other types of insurance. The ESRD Prospective Payment System associated with a 5.0% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 4.0% to 6.0%) increase in home dialysis use by the end of the study period. Home dialysis use increased by 5.8% (95% CI, 4.3% to 6.9%) among Medicare beneficiaries and 4.1% (95% CI, 2.3% to 5.4%) among patients covered by other forms of health insurance. The difference between these groups was not statistically significant (1.8%; 95% CI, -0.2% to 3.8%). Conversely, in both populations, the training add-on did not associate with increases in home dialysis use beyond the effect of the policy. The ESRD Prospective Payment System bundling, but not the training add-on, associated with substantial increases in home dialysis, which were identical for both Medicare and non-Medicare patients. These spill-over effects suggest that major payment changes in Medicare can affect all patients with ESRD.