Financial toxicity in living donor liver transplantation: A call to action for financial neutrality.

After 2 decades of limited growth, living donor liver transplant (LDLT) has been increasingly accepted as a promising solution to the growing organ shortage in the US. With experience, LDLT offers superior graft and patient survival with low rates of rejection. However, not all waitlisted patients have equal access to LDLT, with financial toxicity representing a substantial barrier. Potential living liver donors face indirect, direct, and opportunity costs associated with donation as well as insurance-based discrimination and variable employer leave policies. There are multiple potential national, local, and patient-centered solutions to address some of the cost-related issues associated with living LDLT. These include standardization of employer leave policies, creation of federal and state-led tax relief programs, optimization of National Living Donor Assistance Center use, engagement of independent living donor advocates, creation of financial toolkits, and encouragement of recipient or donor-led fundraising. In this piece, members of the North American Living Liver Donation Group, a consortium of 37 LDLT programs, explore these financial challenges and discuss solutions to achieve financial neutrality, where individuals can donate free from financial constraints or gains. As a community, it is imperative that we confront factors driving financial toxicity to improve equity and access to LDLT.

Liver transplantation in alcohol-associated liver disease: ensuring equity through new processes.

Worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic, alcohol use is one of the leading causes of preventable death in the US, in large part due to alcohol-associated liver disease. Throughout history, liver transplantation for this population has been controversial, and many policies and regulations have existed to limit access to lifesaving transplant for patients who use alcohol. In recent years, the rates of liver transplantation for patients with alcohol-associated liver disease have increased dramatically; however, disparities persist. For instance, many criteria used in evaluation for transplant listing, such as social support and prior knowledge of the harms of alcohol use, are not evidence based and may selectively disadvantage patients with alcohol use disorder. In addition, few transplant providers have adequate training in the treatment of alcohol use disorder, and few transplant centers offer specialized addiction treatment. Finally, current approaches to liver transplantation would benefit from adopting principles of harm reduction, which have demonstrated efficacy in the realm of addiction medicine for years. As we look toward the future, we must emphasize the use of evidence-based measures in selecting patients for listing, ensure access to high-quality addiction care for all patients pretransplant and posttransplant, and adopt harm reduction beliefs to better address relapse when it inevitably occurs. We believe that only by addressing each of these issues will we be able to ensure a more equitable distribution of resources in liver transplantation for all patients.

Ethical analysis examining the prioritisation of living donor transplantation in times of healthcare rationing.

The transplant community has faced unprecedented challenges balancing risks of performing living donor transplants during the COVID-19 pandemic with harms of temporarily suspending these procedures. Decisions regarding postponement of living donation stem from its designation as an elective procedure, this despite that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services categorise transplant procedures as tier 3b (high medical urgency-do not postpone). In times of severe resource constraints, health systems may be operating under crisis or contingency standards of care. In this manuscript, the United Network for Organ Sharing Ethics Workgroup explores prioritisation of living donation where health systems operate under contingency standards of care and provide a framework with recommendations to the transplant community on how to approach living donation in these circumstances.To guide the transplant community in future decisions, this analysis suggests that: (1) living donor transplants represent an important option for individuals with end-stage liver and kidney disease and should not be suspended uniformly under contingency standards, (2) exposure risk to SARS-CoV-2 should be balanced with other risks, such as exposure risks at dialysis centres. Because many of these risks are not quantifiable, donors and recipients should be included in discussions on what constitutes acceptable risk, (3) transplant hospitals should strive to maintain a critical transplant workforce and avoid diverting expertise, which could negatively impact patient preparedness for transplant, (4) transplant hospitals should consider implementing protocols to ensure early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections and discuss these measures with donors and recipients in a process of shared decision-making.

Use of Advance Care Planning Codes Among Transgender Medicare Beneficiaries.

Purpose: We examined the use of advance care planning (ACP) among Medicare beneficiaries who were identified as transgender. Methods: This study is a cross-sectional analysis of Medicare claims from 2016 to 2018, comparing ACP visits between transgender and other beneficiaries. Results: Beneficiaries identified as transgender were slightly more likely than those who were dual eligible for Medicaid and Medicare, and the remaining fee-for-service Medicare population, to have received a claim for ACP. However, racial and ethnic differences exist and transgender beneficiaries were more likely to receive an ACP claim from hospice/palliative care clinicians compared with primary care clinicians relative to other beneficiaries. Conclusions: Differences in ACP provision may exacerbate disparities in access to ACP benefits faced by transgender patients.

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.

Is This ACP? A Focus Group Study of Patient Experiences of Advance Care Planning.

BACKGROUND: To date, most research on patients' experiences with advance care planning (ACP) focuses on motivations to engage in discussions and how patients prepare. Gaps remain in understanding how non-critically ill Medicare patients perceive ACP encounters, including how they characterize positive and negative experiences with ACP. OBJECTIVES: Understanding these patients' perceptions is imperative as Medicare has sought to incentivize provision of ACP services via two billing codes in 2016. DESIGN: Qualitative focus group study. Thematic analysis was performed to assess participants ACP experience. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries who had engaged in or were billed for ACP. KEY RESULTS: Seven focus groups were conducted with 34 Medicare beneficiaries who had engaged in ACP across 5 US health systems. Participants described a spectrum of perceptions regarding ACP, and a range of delivery approaches, including group ACP, discussions with specialists during serious illness, and ACP in primary care settings during wellness visits. Despite being billed for ACP or having ACP services noted in their medical record, many did not recognize that they had engaged in ACP, expressed lack of clarity over the term "ACP," and were unaware of the Medicare billing codes. Among participants who described quality patient-centered ACP experiences, three additional themes were identified: trusted and established patient/clinician relationships, transparent communication and documentation, and an understanding that ACP is revisable. Participants offered recommendations for clinicians and health systems to improve the patient ACP experience. CONCLUSIONS: Findings include actionable steps to promote patient-centered ACP experiences, including clinician training to support improved communication and facilitating shared decision-making, allocating sufficient clinical time for discussions, and ensuring that documentation of preferences is clear and accessible. Other approaches such as group ACP and ACP navigators may help to support patient interests within clinical constraints and need to be further explored.

Understanding The Use Of Medicare Procedure Codes For Advance Care Planning: A National Qualitative Study.

In 2016 Medicare introduced advance care planning Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes to reimburse clinicians for time spent providing the service. Despite recent increases, use of these codes remains low for reasons incompletely captured by quantitative research. To further identify barriers and facilitators to code use for Medicare fee-for-service enrollees, we conducted case studies at eleven health systems, including 272 interviews with clinicians, administrators, and key leadership. Five themes related to use of the new codes emerged: code-based constraints to billing, burdening patients with unexpected charges, ethical concerns with billing for discussion of advance care plans, incentives to signal the importance of their use in billing, and increasing both workflow burden and the need for institutional supports and training. Respondents also observed that use was facilitated by health systems' investment in clinician training and in processes to audit the codes' use. Our findings suggest that increased reimbursement, strong institutional commitment and support, and streamlined workflow could improve the use of the new CPT codes to document receipt of and ensure access to Medicare advance care planning.

Practice Billing for Medicare Advance Care Planning Across the USA.

BACKGROUND: Medicare introduced billing codes in 2016 to encourage clinicians to engage in advance care planning (ACP) and promote goal-concordantend-of-life care, but uptake has been modest. While prior research examined individual-level factors in ACP billing, organization-level factors associated with physician practices billing for ACP remain unknown. OBJECTIVE: Examine the role of practices in ACP billing. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study analyzing 2016-2018 national Medicare data. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 53,926 practices with at least 10 attributed Medicare beneficiaries. MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes were practice-level ACP billing (any use by the practice) and ACP use rate by practice-attributed beneficiaries. Practice characteristics were number of beneficiaries attributed to the practice; percentage of beneficiaries by race, Medicare-Medicaid dual enrollment, sex, and age; practice size; and specialty mix. KEY RESULTS: Fifteen percent of practices billed for ACP. In adjusted models, we found higher odds of ACP billing and higher ACP use rates among practices with more primary care physicians (billing AOR: 10.01, 95%CI: 8.81-11.38 for practices with 75-100% (vs 0) primary care physicians), and those serving more Medicare beneficiaries (billing AOR: 4.55, 95%CI 4.08-5.08 for practices with highest (vs lowest) quintile of beneficiaries), and larger shares of female beneficiaries (billing AOR: 3.06, 95% CI 2.01-4.67 for 75-100% (vs <25%) female ). CONCLUSIONS: Several years after Medicare introduced ACP reimbursements for physicians, relatively few practices bill for ACP. ACP billing was more likely in large practices with a greater percentage of primary care physicians. To increase ACP billing uptake, policymakers and health system leaders might target interventions to larger practices where a small number of physicians already bill for ACP and to specialty practices that serve as the primary source of care for seriously ill patients.

"Don't Talk to Them About Goals of Care": Understanding Disparities in Advance Care Planning.

BACKGROUND: Structurally marginalized groups experience disproportionately low rates of advance care planning (ACP). To improve equitable patient-centered end-of-life care, we examine barriers and facilitators to ACP among clinicians as they are central participants in these discussions. METHOD: In this national study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with purposively selected clinicians from 6 diverse health systems between August 2018 and June 2019. Thematic analysis yielded themes characterizing clinicians' perceptions of barriers and facilitators to ACP among patients, and patient-centered ways of overcoming them. RESULTS: Among 74 participants, 49 (66.2%) were physicians, 16.2% were nurses, and 13.5% were social workers. Most worked in primary care (35.1%), geriatrics (21.1%), and palliative care (19.3%) settings. Clinicians most frequently expressed difficulty discussing ACP with certain racial and ethnic groups (African American, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American) (31.1%), non-native English speakers (24.3%), and those with certain religious beliefs (Catholic, Orthodox Jewish, and Muslim) (13.5%). Clinicians were more likely to attribute barriers to ACP completion to patients (62.2%), than to clinicians (35.1%) or health systems (37.8%). Three themes characterized clinicians' difficulty approaching ACP (preconceived views of patients' preferences, narrow definitions of successful ACP, and lack of institutional resources), while the final theme illustrated facilitators to ACP (acknowledging bias and rejecting stereotypes, mission-driven focus on ACP, and acceptance of all preferences). CONCLUSIONS: Most clinicians avoided ACP with certain racial and ethnic groups, those with limited English fluency, and persons with certain religious beliefs. Our findings provide evidence to support development of clinician-level and institutional-level interventions and to reduce disparities in ACP.

Why are some people reluctant to be vaccinated for COVID-19? A cross-sectional survey among U.S. Adults in May-June 2020.

Understanding reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is necessary to ensure maximum uptake, needed for herd immunity. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey between May 29-June 20, 2020 among a national sample of U.S. adults ages 18 years and over to assess cognitive, attitudinal and normative beliefs associated with not intending to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Of 1219 respondents, 17.7% said that they would not get a vaccine and 24.2% were unsure. In multivariable analyses controlled for gender, age, income, education, religious affiliation, health insurance coverage, and political party affiliation, those who reported that they were unwilling be vaccinated (versus those who were willing) were less likely to agree that vaccines are safe/effective (Relative Risk Ratio (RRR): 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.31, 0.66), that everyone has a responsibility to be vaccinated (RRR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.30, 0.52), that public authorities should be able to mandate vaccination (RRR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.58, 0.98), and more likely to believe that if everyone else were vaccinated they would not need a vaccine (RRR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.78). Our results suggest that health messages should emphasize the safety and efficacy of vaccines, as well as the fact that vaccinating oneself is important, even if the level of uptake in the community is high.

Advance care planning among Medicare beneficiaries with dementia undergoing surgery.

IMPORTANCE: Advance care planning (ACP), in which patients or their surrogates discuss goals and preferences for care with physicians, attorneys, friends, and family, is an important approach to help align goals with actual treatment. ACP may be particularly valuable in patients with advanced serious illnesses such as Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRDs) for whom surgery carries significant risks. OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency, timing, and factors associated with ACP billing in Medicare beneficiaries with ADRD undergoing nontrauma inpatient surgery. DESIGN: This national cohort study analyzes Medicare fee-for-service claims data from 2016 to 2017. All patients had a 6-month lookback and follow-up period. SETTING: National Medicare fee-for-service data. PARTICIPANTS: All patients with ADRD, defined according to the Chronic Conditions Warehouse, undergoing inpatient surgery from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017. EXPOSURES: Patient demographics, medical history, and procedural outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME: ACP billing codes from 6 months before to 6 months after admission for inpatient surgery. RESULTS: This study included 289,428 patients with ADRD undergoing surgery, of whom 21,754 (7.5%) had billed ACP within the 6 months before and after surgical admission. In a multivariable analysis, patients of white race, male sex, and residence in the Southern and Midwestern United States were at the highest risk of not receiving ACP. Of all patients who received ACP, 5960 (27.4%) did so before surgery while 12,658 (52.8%) received ACP after surgery. Timing of ACP after surgery was associated with an Elixhauser comorbidity index of 3 or higher (1.23, p = 0.045) and major postoperative complication or death (odds ratio 1.52, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Overall ACP billing code use is low among Medicare patients with ADRD undergoing surgery. Billed ACP appears to have a reactive pattern, occurring most commonly after surgery and in association with postoperative mortality and complications. Additional study is warranted to understand barriers to use.

Advance Care Planning in Older Adults with CKD: Patient, Care Partner, and Clinician Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Older patients with advanced CKD are at high risk for serious complications and death, yet few discuss advance care planning (ACP) with their kidney clinicians. Examining barriers and facilitators to ACP among such patients might help identify patient-centered opportunities for improvement. METHODS: In semistructured interviews in March through August 2019 with purposively sampled patients (aged ≥70 years, CKD stages 4-5, nondialysis), care partners, and clinicians at clinics in across the United States, participants described discussions, factors contributing to ACP completion or avoidance, and perceived value of ACP. We used thematic analysis to analyze data. RESULTS: We conducted 68 semistructured interviews with 23 patients, 19 care partners, and 26 clinicians. Only seven of 26 (27%) clinicians routinely discussed ACP. About half of the patients had documented ACP, mostly outside the health care system. We found divergent ACP definitions and perspectives; kidney clinicians largely defined ACP as completion of formal documentation, whereas patients viewed it more holistically, wanting discussions about goals, prognosis, and disease trajectory. Clinicians avoided ACP with patients from minority groups, perceiving cultural or religious barriers. Four themes and subthemes informing variation in decisions to discuss ACP and approaches emerged: (1) role ambiguity and responsibility for ACP, (2) questioning the value of ACP, (3) confronting institutional barriers (time, training, reimbursement, and the electronic medical record, EMR), and (4) consequences of avoiding ACP (disparities in ACP access and overconfidence that patients' wishes are known). CONCLUSIONS: Patients, care partners, and clinicians hold discordant views about the responsibility for discussing ACP and the scope for it. This presents critical barriers to the process, leaving ACP insufficiently discussed with older adults with advanced CKD.

A Qualitative Analysis of Surgical Faculty and Surgical Resident Perceptions of Potential Barriers to Implementing a Novel Surgical Education Curriculum.

OBJECTIVE: Sociocultural differences between patients and physicians affect communication, and suboptimal communication can lead to patient dissatisfaction and poor health outcomes. To mitigate disparities in surgical outcomes, the Provider Awareness and Cultural dexterity Toolkit for Surgeons was developed as a novel curriculum for surgical residents focusing on patient-centeredness and enhanced patient-clinician communication through a cultural dexterity framework. This study's objective was to examine surgical faculty and surgical resident perspectives on potential facilitators and barriers to implementing the cultural dexterity curriculum. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Focus groups were conducted at 2 separate academic conferences, with the curriculum provided to participants for advanced review. The first 4 focus groups consisted entirely of surgical faculty (n = 37), each with 9 to 10 participants. The next 4 focus groups consisted of surgical residents (n = 31), each with 6 to 11 participants. Focus groups were recorded and transcribed, and the data were thematically analyzed using a constant, comparative method. RESULTS: Three major themes emerged: (1) Departmental and hospital endorsement of the curriculum are necessary to ensure successful rollout. (2) Residents must be engaged in the curriculum in order to obtain full participation and "buy-in." (3) The application of cultural dexterity concepts in practice are influenced by systemic and institutional factors. CONCLUSIONS: Institutional support, resident engagement, and applicability to practice are crucial considerations for the implementation of a cultural dexterity curriculum for surgical residents. These 3 tenets, as identified by surgical faculty and residents, are critical for ensuring an impactful and clinically relevant education program.

Association of Billed Advance Care Planning with End-of-Life Care Intensity for 2017 Medicare Decedents.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) reimburses clinicians for advance care planning (ACP) discussions with Medicare patients. The objective of the study was to examine the association of CMS-billed ACP visits with end-of-life (EOL) healthcare utilization. DESIGN: Patient-level analyses of claims for the random 20% Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) sample of decedents in 2017. To account for multiple comparisons, Bonferroni adjusted P value <.008 was considered statistically significant. SETTING: Nationally representative sample of Medicare FFS beneficiaries. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 237,989 Medicare FFS beneficiaries who died in 2017 and included those with and without a billed ACP visit during 2016-17. INTERVENTION: The key exposure variable was receipt of first billed ACP (none, >1 month before death). MEASUREMENTS: Six measures of EOL healthcare utilization or intensity (inpatient admission, emergency department [ED] visit, intensive care unit [ICU] stay, and expenditures within 30 days of death, in-hospital death, and first hospice within 3 days of death). Analyses was adjusted for age, race, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, expenditure by Dartmouth hospital referral region (high, medium, or low), and dual eligibility. RESULTS: Overall, 6.3% (14,986) of the sample had at least one billed ACP visit. After multivariable adjustment, patients with an ACP visit experienced significantly less intensive EOL care on four of six measures: hospitalization (odds ratio [OR] = .77; 95% confidence interval [CI] = .74-.79), ED visit (OR = .77; 95% CI = .75-.80), or ICU stay (OR = .78; 95% CI = .74-.81) within a month of death; and they were less likely to die in the hospital (OR = .79; 95% CI = .76-.82). There were no differences in the rate of late hospice enrollment (OR = .97; 95% CI = .92-1.01; P = .119) or mean expenditures ($242.50; 95% CI = -$103.63 to $588.61; P = .169). CONCLUSION: Billed ACP visits were relatively uncommon among Medicare FFS decedents, but their occurrence was associated with less intensive EOL utilization. Further research on the variables affecting hospice use and expenditures in the EOL period is recommended to understand the relative role of ACP.

Utilization of ACP CPT codes among high-need Medicare beneficiaries in 2017: A brief report.

IMPORTANCE: Medicare beneficiaries with high medical needs can benefit from Advance Care Planning (ACP). Medicare reimburses clinical providers for ACP discussions, but it is unknown whether high-need beneficiaries are receiving this service. OBJECTIVE: To compare rates of billed ACP discussions among a cohort of high-need Medicare beneficiaries with the non-high-needs Medicare population. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) claims in 2017 comparing high-need beneficiaries (seriously ill, frail, ESRD, and disabled) with non-high need beneficiaries. SETTING: Nationally representative FFS Medicare 20% sample. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries were assigned to one of the following classifications: seriously ill (65+), frail (65+), seriously ill & frail (65+); non-high need (65+); end stage renal disease (ESRD) or disabled (<65). All participants had data available for years 2016-2017. EXPOSURE: Receipt of a billed ACP discussion, CPT codes 99497 or 99498. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE: Rates of billed ACP visits were compared between high-need patients and non-high-need patients. Rates were adjusted for the 65+ population for sex, age, race/ethnicity, Charlson comorbidity index, Medicare/Medicaid dual eligibility status, and Hospital Referral Region. RESULTS: Among the 65+ groups, those most likely to have a billed ACP discussion included seriously ill & frail (5.2%), seriously ill (4.2%), and frail (3.3%). Rates remained consistent after adjusting (4.5%, 4.0%, 3.1%, respectively). Each subgroup differed significantly (p < .05) from non-high need beneficiaries (2.3%) in both unadjusted and adjusted analyses. Among the <65 high need groups, the rates were 2.7% for ESRD and 1.3% for the disabled (the latter p < .05 compared with non-high needs). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: While rates of billed ACP discussions varied among patient groups with high medical needs, overall they were relatively low, even among a cohort of patients for whom ACP may be especially relevant.

A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understanding Variation in Social Support Requirements and Implications for Access to Transplantation in the United States.

Social support is a key component of transplantation evaluation in the United States. Social support definitions and evaluation procedures require examination to achieve clear, consistent implementation. We surveyed psychosocial clinicians from the Society for Transplant Social Workers and American Society of Transplant Surgeons about their definitions and evaluation procedures for using social support to determine transplant eligibility. Bivariate statistical analysis was used for quantitative data and content analysis for qualitative data. Among 276 psychosocial clinicians (50.2% response rate), 92% had ruled out patients from transplantation due to inadequate support. Social support definitions varied significantly: 10% of respondents indicated their center lacked a definition. Key domains of social support included informational, emotional, instrumental, motivational, paid support, and the patient's importance to others. Almost half of clinicians (47%) rarely or never requested second opinions when excluding patients due to social support. Confidence and perceived clarity and consistency in center guidelines were significantly associated with informing patients when support contributed to negative wait-listing decisions (P = .001). Clinicians who excluded fewer patients because of social support offered significantly more supportive health care (P = .02). Clearer definitions and more supportive care may reduce the number of patients excluded from transplant candidacy due to inadequate social support.

Should Lack of Social Support Prevent Access to Organ Transplantation?

Transplantation programs commonly rely on clinicians' judgments about patients' social support (care from friends or family) when deciding whether to list them for organ transplantation. We examine whether using social support to make listing decisions for adults seeking transplantation is morally legitimate, drawing on recent data about the evidence-base, implementation, and potential impacts of the criterion on underserved and diverse populations. We demonstrate that the rationale for the social support criterion, based in the principle of utility, is undermined by its reliance on tenuous evidence. Moreover, social support requirements may reinforce transplant inequities, interfere in patients' personal relationships, and contribute to biased and inconsistent listing procedures. As such, accommodating the needs of patients with limited social support would better balance ethical commitments to equity, utility, and respect for persons in transplantation. We suggest steps for researchers, transplantation programs, and policymakers to improve fair use of social support in transplantation.

Excluding patients from transplant due to social support: Results from a national survey of transplant providers.

Social support is used to determine transplant eligibility despite lack of an evidence base and vague regulatory guidance. It is unknown how many patients are disqualified from transplantation due to inadequate support, and whether providers feel confident using these subjective criteria to determine eligibility. Transplant providers (n = 551) from 202 centers estimated that, on average, 9.6% (standard deviation = 9.4) of patients evaluated in the prior year were excluded due to inadequate support. This varied significantly by United Network for Organ Sharing region (7.6%-12.2%), and by center (21.7% among top quartile). Significantly more providers used social support in listing decisions than believed it ought to be used (86.3% vs 67.6%). Nearly 25% believed that using social support in listing determinations was unfair or were unsure; 67.3% felt it disproportionately impacted patients of low socioeconomic status. Overall, 42.4% were only somewhat or not at all confident using social support to determine transplant suitability. Compared to surgical/medical transplant providers, psychosocial providers had 2.13 greater odds of supporting the criteria (P = .03). Furthermore, 69.2% supported revised guidelines for use of social support in listing decisions. Social support criteria should be reconsidered in light of the limited evidence, potential for disparities, practice variation, low provider confidence, and desire for revised guidelines.