A Population Health Approach to Transplant Access: Challenging the Status Quo.

Transplant referral and evaluation are critical steps to waitlisting yet remain an elusive part of the transplant process. Despite calls for more data collection on pre-waitlisting steps, there are currently no national surveillance data to aid in understanding the causes and potential solutions for the extreme variation in access to transplantation. As population health scientists, epidemiologists, clinicians, and ethicists we submit that the transplant community has an obligation to better understand disparities in transplant access as a first necessary step to effectively mitigating these inequities. Our position is grounded in a population health approach, consistent with several new overarching national policy and quality initiatives. The purpose of this Perspective is to (1) provide an overview of how a population health approach should inform current multisystem policies impacting kidney transplantation and demonstrate how these efforts could be enhanced with national data collection on pre-waitlisting steps; (2) demonstrate the feasibility and concrete next steps for pre-waitlisting data collection; and (3) identify potential opportunities to use these data to implement effective population-level interventions, policies, and quality measures to improve equity in access to kidney transplantation.

Patients with High Priority for Kidney Transplant Who Are Not Given Expedited Placement on the Transplant Waiting List Represent Lost Opportunities.

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation is associated with the best outcomes for most patients with ESKD. The national Kidney Allocation System prioritizes patients with Estimated Post-Transplant Survival (EPTS) scores in the top 20% for expedited access to optimal deceased donor kidneys. METHODS: We studied adults aged ≥18 years in the United States Renal Data System with top 20% EPTS scores who had been preemptively waitlisted or initiated dialysis in 2015-2017. We evaluated time to waitlist placement, transplantation, and mortality with unadjusted and multivariable survival models. RESULTS: Of 42,445 patients with top 20% EPTS scores (mean age, 38.0 years; 57% male; 59% White patients, and 31% Black patients), 7922 were preemptively waitlisted. Among 34,523 patients initiating dialysis, the 3-year cumulative waitlist placement incidence was 37%. Numerous factors independently associated with waitlisting included race, income, and having noncommercial insurance. For example, waitlisting was less likely for Black versus White patients, and for patients in the lowest-income neighborhoods versus those in the highest-income neighborhoods. Among patients initiating dialysis, 61% lost their top 20% EPTS status within 30 months versus 18% of patients who were preemptively listed. The 3-year incidence of deceased and living donor transplantation was 5% and 6%, respectively, for patients who initiated dialysis and 26% and 44%, respectively, for patients who were preemptively listed. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients with ESKDqualifying with top 20% EPTS status are not placed on the transplant waiting list in a timely manner, with significant variation on the basis of demographic and social factors. Patients who are preemptively listed are more likely to receive benefits of top 20% EPTS status. Efforts to expedite care for qualifying candidates are needed, and automated transplant referral for patients with the best prognoses should be considered. PODCAST: This article contains a podcast athttps://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/JASN/2021_07_30_JASN2020081146.mp3.

Patient portals and broadband internet inequality.

BACKGROUND: Patient portals have shown potential for increasing health care quality and efficiency. Internet access and other factors influencing patient portal use could worsen health disparities. METHODS: Observational study of adults with 1 or more visits to the outpatient clinics of an urban public health care system from 2012 to 2015. We used mixed effects logistic regression to evaluate the association between broadband internet access and (1) patient portal initiation (whether a patient logged in at least 1 time) and (2) messaging, controlling for demographic and neighborhood characteristics. RESULTS: There were 243 248 adults with 1 or more visits during 2012-2015 and 70 835 (29.1%) initiated portal use. Portal initiation was 34.1% for whites, 23.4% for blacks, and 23.8% for Hispanics, and was lower for Medicaid (26.5%), Medicare (23.4%), and uninsured patients (17.4%) than commercially insured patients (39.3%). In multivariate analysis, both initiation of portal use (odds ratio [OR] = 1.24 per quintile, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23-1.24, P < .0001) and sending messages to providers (OR = 1.15, 95%CI, 1.09-1.14, P < .0001) were associated with neighborhood broadband internet access. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of adults with outpatient visits to a large urban health care system did not use the patient portal, and initiation of use was lower for racial and ethnic minorities, persons of lower socioeconomic status, and those without neighborhood broadband internet access. These results suggest the emergence of a digital divide in patient portal use. Given the scale of investment in patient portals and other internet-dependent health information technologies, efforts are urgently needed to address this growing inequality.

Comparison of the Availability and Cost of Foods Compatible With a Renal Diet Versus an Unrestricted Diet Using the Nutrition Environment Measures Survey.

OBJECTIVE: Hemodialysis patients' ability to access food that is both compatible with a renal diet and affordable is affected by the local food environment. Comparisons of the availability and cost of food items suitable for the renal diet versus a typical unrestricted diet were completed using the standard Nutrition Environment Measures Survey and a renal diet-modified Nutrition Environment Measures Survey. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Twelve grocery stores in Northeast Ohio. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Availability and cost of food items in 12 categories. RESULTS: The mean total number of food items available differed significantly (P ≤ .001) between the unrestricted diet (38.9 ± 4.5) and renal diet (32.2 ± 4.7). The mean total cost per serving did not differ significantly (P = 0.48) between the unrestricted diet ($5.67 ± 2.50) and renal diet ($5.76 ± 2.74). CONCLUSION: The availability of renal diet food items is significantly less than that of unrestricted diet food items, but there is no difference in the cost of items that are available in grocery stores. Further work is needed to determine how to improve the food environment for patients with chronic diseases.