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.

Projecting the Economic Impact of Compensating Living Kidney Donors in the United States: Cost-Benefit Analysis Demonstrates Substantial Patient and Societal Gains.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to show how the US government could save approximately 47 000 patients with chronic kidney failure each year from suffering on dialysis and premature death by compensating living kidney donors enough to completely end the kidney shortage. METHODS: Supply and demand analysis was used to estimate the number of donated kidneys needed to end the kidney shortage and the level of compensation required to encourage this number of donations. These results were then input into a detailed cost-benefit analysis to estimate the economic value of kidney transplantation to (1) the average kidney recipient and their caregiver, (2) taxpayers, and (3) society in general. RESULTS: We estimate half of patients diagnosed with kidney failure each year-approximately 62 000 patients-could be saved from suffering on dialysis and premature death if they could receive an average of 1½ kidney transplants. However, currently there are only enough donated kidneys to save approximately 15 000 patients. To encourage sufficient donations to save the other 47 000 patients, the government would have to compensate living kidney donors approximately $77 000 (±50%) per donor. The value of transplantation to an average kidney recipient (and caregiver) would be approximately $1.5 million, and the savings from the recipient not needing expensive dialysis treatments would be approximately $1.2 million. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis reveals the huge benefit that compensating living kidney donors would provide to patients with kidney failure and their caregivers and, conversely, the huge cost that is being imposed on these patients and their families by the current legal prohibition against such compensation.

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.

Cost Structures of US Organ Procurement Organizations.

BACKGROUND: The goal is to provide a national analysis of organ procurement organization (OPO) costs. METHODS: Five years of data, for 51 of the 58 OPOs (2013-2017, a near census) were obtained under a FOIA. OPOs are not-for-profit federal contractors with a geographic monopoly. A generalized 15-factor cost regression model was estimated with adjustments to precision of estimates (P) for repeated observations. Selected measures were validated by comparison to IRS forms. RESULTS: Decease donor organ procurement is a $1B/y operation with over 26 000 transplants/y. Over 60% of the cost of an organ is overhead. Profits are $2.3M/OPO/y. Total assets are $45M/OPO and growing at 9%/y. "Tissue" (skin, bones) generates $2-3M profit/OPO/y. A comparison of the highest with the lower costing OPOs showed our model explained 75% of the cost difference. Comparing costs across OPOs showed that highest-cost OPOs are smaller, import 44% more kidneys, face 6% higher labor costs, report 98% higher compensation for support personnel, spend 46% more on professional education, have 44% fewer assets, compensate their Executive Director 36% less, and have a lower procurement performance (SDRR) score. CONCLUSIONS: Profits and assets suggest that OPOs are fiscally secure and OPO finances are not a source of the organ shortage. Asset accumulation ($45M/OPO) of incumbents suggests establishing a competitive market with new entrants is unlikely. Kidney-cost allocations support tissue procurements. Professional education spending does not reduce procurement costs. OPO importing of organs from other OPOs is a complex issue possibly increasing cost ($6K/kidney).

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.

The cost of procuring deceased donor kidneys: Evidence from OPO cost reports 2013-2017.

Using 5 years of US organ procurement organization (OPO) data, we determined the cost of recovering a viable (ie, transplanted) kidney for each of 51 OPOs. We also examined the effects on OPO costs of the recovery of nonviable (ie, discarded) kidneys and other OPO metrics. Annual cost reports from 51 independent OPOs were used to determine the cost per recovered kidney for each OPO. A quadratic regression model was employed to estimate the relationship between the cost of kidneys and the number of viable kidneys recovered, as well as other OPO performance indicators. The cost of transplanted kidneys at individual OPOs ranged widely from $24 000 to $56 000, and the average was $36 000. The cost of a viable kidney tended to decline with the number of kidneys procured up to 549 kidneys per year and then increase. Of the total 81 401 kidneys recovered, 66 454 were viable and 14 947 (18.4%) were nonviable. The costs of kidneys varied widely over the OPOs studied, and costs were a function of the recovered number of viable and nonviable organs, local cost levels, donation after cardiac death, year, and Standardized Donor Rate Ratio. Cost increases were 3% per year.

Would government compensation of living kidney donors exploit the poor? An empirical analysis.

Government compensation of kidney donors would likely increase the supply of kidneys and prevent the premature deaths of tens of thousands of patients with kidney failure each year. The major argument against it is that it would exploit the poor who would be more likely to accept the offers of compensation. This overlooks the fact that many poor patients desperately need a kidney transplant and would greatly benefit from an increased supply of kidneys. The objective of this study is to empirically test the hypothesis that government compensation of kidney donors would exploit the poor. Exploitation is defined by economists and several noted ethicists as paying donors less than the fair market value of their kidney. Exploitation is expressed in monetary terms and compared with the economic benefit recipients receive from a transplant. Data are from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and the United States Renal Data System annual data reports. Educational attainment is used as a proxy for income. We estimate that if the government rewards living donors with a package of non-cash benefits worth $75,000 per kidney, donors would not be exploited. Much more important, this compensation would likely end the kidney shortage, enabling many more patients with kidney failure to obtain transplants and live longer and healthier lives. The value of kidney transplantation to a U.S. recipient is about $1,330,000, which is an order of magnitude greater than any purported exploitation of a living donor (zero to $75,000). Consequently, the aggregate net benefit to the poor alone from kidney transplantation would increase to about $12 billion per year from $1 billion per year currently. Most of the benefit would accrue to poor kidney recipients. But poor donors would receive the fair market value of their kidney, and hence would not be exploited. If the government wanted to ensure that donors also received a net benefit, it could easily do so by increasing the compensation above $75,000 per donor.

End-stage renal disease and economic incentives: the International Study of Health Care Organization and Financing (ISHCOF).

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is a debilitating, costly, and increasingly common condition. Little is known about how different financing approaches affect ESRD outcomes and delivery of care. This paper presents results from a comparative review of 12 countries with alternative models of incentives and benefits, collected under the International Study of Health Care Organization and Financing, a substudy within the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study. Variation in spending per ESRD patient is relatively small, but correlated with overall per capita health care spending. Remaining differences in costs and outcomes do not seem strongly linked to differences in incentives.

Kidney transplantation and wait-listing rates from the international Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS).

BACKGROUND: The international Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS I and II) allows description of variations in kidney transplantation and wait-listing from nationally representative samples of 18- to 65-year-old hemodialysis patients. The present study examines the health status and socioeconomic characteristics of United States patients, the role of for-profit versus not-for-profit status of dialysis facilities, and the likelihood of transplant wait-listing and transplantation rates. METHODS: Analyses of transplantation rates were based on 5267 randomly selected DOPPS I patients in dialysis units in the United States, Europe, and Japan who received chronic hemodialysis therapy for at least 90 days in 2000. Left-truncated Cox regression was used to assess time to kidney transplantation. Logistic regression determined the odds of being transplant wait-listed for a cross-section of 1323 hemodialysis patients in the United States in 2000. Furthermore, kidney transplant wait-listing was determined in 12 countries from cross-sectional samples of DOPPS II hemodialysis patients in 2002 to 2003 (N= 4274). RESULTS: Transplantation rates varied widely, from very low in Japan to 25-fold higher in the United States and 75-fold higher in Spain (both P values <0.0001). Factors associated with higher rates of transplantation included younger age, nonblack race, less comorbidity, fewer years on dialysis, higher income, and higher education levels. The likelihood of being wait-listed showed wide variation internationally and by United States region but not by for-profit dialysis unit status within the United States. CONCLUSION: DOPPS I and II confirmed large variations in kidney transplantation rates by country, even after adjusting for differences in case mix. Facility size and, in the United States, profit status, were not associated with varying transplantation rates. International results consistently showed higher transplantation rates for younger, healthier, better-educated, and higher income patients.

Effect of changing the priority for HLA matching on the rates and outcomes of kidney transplantation in minority groups.

BACKGROUND: HLA typing and the time a patient has spent on the waiting list are the primary criteria used to allocate cadaveric kidneys for transplantation in the United States. Candidates with no HLA-A, B, and DR mismatches are given top priority, followed by candidates with the fewest mismatches at the HLA-B and DR loci; this policy contributes to a higher transplantation rate among whites than nonwhites. We hypothesized that changing this allocation policy would affect graft survival and the racial balance among transplant recipients. METHODS: We estimated the relative rates of kidney transplantation according to race resulting from the current allocation policy and racial differences in HLA antigen profiles, using a Cox model for the time from placement on the waiting list to transplantation. Another model, also adjusted for HLA-B and DR antigen profiles, estimated the relative rates of kidney transplantation that would result if the distribution of these antigen profiles were identical among the racial and ethnic groups. We also investigated the effect of HLA matching on the risk of graft failure, using a Cox model for the time from the first transplantation to graft failure. The results of the two analyses were used to estimate the change in the racial balance of transplantation and graft-failure rates that would result from the elimination of HLA-B matching or HLA-B and DR matching as a means of assigning priority. RESULTS: Eliminating the HLA-B matching as a priority while maintaining HLA-DR matching as a priority would decrease the number of transplantations among whites by 4.0 percent (166 fewer transplantations over a one-year period), whereas it would increase the number among nonwhites by 6.3 percent and increase the rate of graft loss by 2.0 percent. CONCLUSIONS: Removing HLA-B matching as a priority for the allocation of cadaveric kidneys could reduce the existing racial imbalance by increasing the number of transplantations among nonwhites, with only a small increase in the rate of graft loss.

Evaluation of the ESRD managed care demonstration operations.

Individuals with end stage renal disease (ESRD), most of whom are insured by Medicare, are generally prohibited from enrolling in Medicare managed care plans (MCPs). CMS offered ESRD patients the opportunity to participate in an ESRD managed care demonstration mandated by Congress. The demonstration tested whether managed care systems would be of interest to ESRD patients and whether these approaches would be operationally feasible and efficient for treating ESRD patients. This article examines the structure, implementation, and operational outcomes of the three demonstration sites, focusing on: the structure of these managed care programs for ESRD patients, requirements needed to attract and enroll patients, and the challenges of introducing managed care programs in the ESRD arena.

Patient selection in the ESRD managed care demonstration.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service's (CMS') end stage renal disease (ESRD) managed care demonstration offered an opportunity to assess patient selection among a chronically ill and inherently costly population. Patient selection refers to the phenomenon whereby those Medicare beneficiaries who choose to enroll or stay in health maintenance organizations (HMOs) are, on average, younger, healthier, and less costly to treat than beneficiaries who remain in the traditional Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) sector. The results presented in this article show that enrollees into the demonstration were generally younger and healthier than a representative group of comparison patients from the same geographic areas.

Quality of life and patient satisfaction: ESRD managed care demonstration.

To study the effects of managed care on dialysis patients, we compared the quality of life and patient satisfaction of patients in a managed care demonstration with three comparison samples: fee-for-service (FFS) patients, managed care patients outside the demonstration, and patients in a separate national study. Managed care patients were less satisfied than FFS patients about access to health care providers, but more satisfied with the financial benefits (copayment coverage, prescription drugs, and nutritional supplements) provided under the demonstration managed care plan (MCP). After 1 year in the demonstration, patients exhibited statistically and clinically significant increases in quality of life scores.

ESRD managed care demonstration: financial implications.

In 1996, CMS launched the end stage renal disease (ESRD) managed care demonstration to study the experience of offering managed care to ESRD patients. This article analyzes the financial impact of the demonstration, which sought to assess its economic impact on the Federal Government, the sites, and the ESRD Medicare beneficiaries. Medicare's costs for demonstration enrollees were greater than they would have been if these enrollees had remained in the fee-for-service (FFS) system. This loss was driven by the lower than average predicted Medicare spending given the demonstration patients' conditions. The sites experienced losses or only modest gains, primarily because they provided a larger benefit package than traditional Medicare coverage, including no patient obligations and other benefits, especially prescription drugs. Patient financial benefits were approximately $9,000 annually.

Association of comorbid conditions and mortality in hemodialysis patients in Europe, Japan, and the United States: the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS).

Mortality rates among hemodialysis patients vary greatly across regions. Representative databases containing extensive profiles of patient characteristics and outcomes are lacking. The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) is a prospective, observational study of representative samples of hemodialysis patients in France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States (US) that captures extensive data relating to patient characteristics, prescriptions, laboratory values, practice patterns, and outcomes. This report describes the case-mix features and mortality among 16,720 patients followed up to 5 yr. The crude 1-yr mortality rates were 6.6% in Japan, 15.6% in Europe, and 21.7% in the US. After adjusting for age, gender, race, and 25 comorbid conditions, the relative risk (RR) of mortality was 2.84 (P < 0.0001) for Europe compared with Japan (reference group) and was 3.78 (P < 0.0001) for the US compared with Japan. The adjusted RR of mortality for the US versus Europe was 1.33 (P < 0.0001). For most comorbid diseases, prevalence was highest in the US, where the mean age (60.5 +/- 15.5 yr) was also highest. Older age and comorbidities were associated with increased risk of death (except for hypertension, which carried a multivariate RR of mortality of 0.74 [P < 0.0001]). Variability in demographic and comorbid conditions (as identified by dialysis facilities) explains only part of the differences in mortality between dialysis centers, both for comparisons made across continents and within the US. Adjustments for the observed variability will allow study of association between practice patterns and outcomes.

Health-related quality of life among dialysis patients on three continents: the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study.

BACKGROUND: Assessing health-related quality of life (HRQOL) can provide information on the types and degrees of burdens that afflict patients with chronic medical conditions, including end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Several studies have shown important international differences among ESRD patients treated with hemodialysis, but no studies have compared these patients' HRQOL. Our goal was to document international differences in HRQOL among dialysis patients and to identify possible explanations of those differences. METHODS: We examined data from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS), a prospective, observational, international study of hemodialysis patients. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of DOPPS data from the United States, five countries in Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom), and Japan. Linear mixed models were used to analyze differences in HRQOL, using the KDQOL-SFTM. Norm-based scores were used to minimize cultural response bias. Linear regression analysis was used to adjust for confounding factors. Other variables included demographic variables, comorbidities, primary cause of ESRD, complications of ESRD and treatment, and socioeconomic status. RESULTS: In all generic HRQOL subscales, patients on all three continents had much lower scores than their respective population norm values. Patients in the United States had the highest scores on the mental health subscale and the highest mental component summary scores. Japanese patients reported better physical functioning than did patients in the United States or Europe, but they also reported the greatest burden of kidney disease. Overall, these differences remained even after adjusting for possible confounders. CONCLUSION: On all three continents, ESRD and hemodialysis profoundly affect HRQOL. In the United States, the effects on mental health are smaller than in other countries. Japanese hemodialysis patients perceived that their kidney disease imposes a greater burden, but their physical functioning was significantly higher. Different distributions of socioeconomic factors and major comorbid conditions could explain little of this difference in physical functioning. Other possible factors, such as quality of dialysis and related health care, deserve careful study.

Health-related quality of life and associated outcomes among hemodialysis patients of different ethnicities in the United States: the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS).

BACKGROUND: In the United States, an association between mortality risk and ethnicity has been observed among hemodialysis patients. This study was developed to assess whether health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scores also vary among patients of different ethnic backgrounds. Associations between HRQOL and adverse dialysis outcomes (ie, death and hospitalization) also were assessed for all patients and by ethnicity. METHODS: Data are from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study for 6,151 hemodialysis patients treated in 148 US dialysis facilities who filled out the Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form. We determined scores for three components of HRQOL: Physical Component Summary (PCS), Mental Component Summary (MCS), and Kidney Disease Component Summary (KDCS). Patients were classified by ethnicity as Hispanic and five non-Hispanic categories: white, African American, Asian, Native American, and other. Multiple linear regression models were used to estimate differences in HRQOL scores among ethnic groups, using whites as the referent category. Cox regression models were used for associations between HRQOL and outcomes. Regression models were adjusted for sociodemographic variables, delivered dialysis dose (equilibrated Kt/V), body mass index, years on dialysis therapy, and several laboratory/comorbidity variables. RESULTS: Compared with whites, African Americans showed higher HRQOL scores for all three components (MCS, PCS, and KDCS). Asians had higher adjusted PCS scores than whites, but did not differ for MCS or KDCS scores. Compared with whites, Hispanic patients had significantly higher PCS scores and lower MCS and KDCS scores. Native Americans showed significantly lower adjusted MCS scores than whites. The three major components of HRQOL were significantly associated with death and hospitalization for the entire pooled population, independent of ethnicity. CONCLUSION: The data indicate important differences in HRQOL among patients of different ethnic groups in the United States. Furthermore, HRQOL scores predict death and hospitalization among these patients.

Longitudinal assessment of mortality risk among candidates for liver transplantation.

Liver allocation policy recently was modified to use the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) for patients with chronic liver disease to stratify potential recipients according to risk for waitlist death. In this study, a retrospective cohort of 760 adult patients with chronic liver disease placed on the liver transplant waitlist between January 1995 and March 2001 and followed up for up to 74 months was studied to assess the ability of the MELD to predict mortality among waitlisted candidates and evaluate the prognostic importance of changes in MELD score over time. Serial MELD scores predicted waitlist mortality significantly better than baseline MELD scores or medical urgency status. Each unit of the 40-point MELD score was associated with a 22% increased risk for waitlist death (P <.001), whereas medical urgency status was not a significant independent predictor. For any given MELD score, the magnitude and direction of change in MELD score during the previous 30 days (DeltaMELD) was a significant independent mortality predictor. Patients with MELD score increases greater than 5 points over 30 days had a threefold greater waitlist mortality risk than those for whom MELD scores increased more gradually (P <.0001). We conclude that mortality risk on the liver transplant waitlist is predicted more accurately by serial MELD score determinations than by medical urgency status or single MELD measurements. DeltaMELD score over time reflects progression of liver disease and conveys important additional prognostic information that should be considered in the further evolution of national liver allocation policy.