Managing the Costs of Routine Follow-up Care After Living Kidney Donation: a Review and Survey of Contemporary Experience, Practices, and Challenges.

Purpose of Review: While living organ donor follow-up is mandated for 2 years in the USA, formal guidance on recovering associated costs of follow-up care is lacking. In this review, we discuss current billing practices of transplant programs for living kidney donor follow-up, and propose future directions for managing follow-up costs and supporting cost neutrality in donor care. Recent Findings: Living donors may incur costs and financial risks in the donation process, including travel, lost time from work, and dependent care. In addition, adherence to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) mandate for US transplant programs to submit 6-, 12-, and 24-month postdonation follow-up data to the national registry may incur out-of-pocket medical costs for donors. Notably, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has explicitly disallowed transplant programs to bill routine, mandated follow-up costs to the organ acquisition cost center or to the recipient's Medicare insurance. We conducted a survey of transplant staff in the USA (distributed October 22, 2020-March 15, 2021), which identified that the mechanisms for recovering or covering the costs of mandated routine postdonation follow-up at responding programs commonly include billing recipients' private insurance (40%), while 41% bill recipients' Medicare insurance. Many programs reported utilizing institutional allowancing (up to 50%), and some programs billed the organ acquisition cost center (25%). A small percentage (11%) reported billing donors or donors' insurance. Summary: To maintain a high level of adherence to living donor follow-up without financially burdening donors, up-to-date resources are needed on handling routine donor follow-up costs in ways that are policy-compliant and effective for donors and programs. Development of a government-supported national living donor follow-up registry like the Living Donor Collective may provide solutions for aspects of postdonation follow-up, but requires transplant program commitment to register donors and donor candidates as well as donor engagement with follow-up outreach contacts after donation. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40472-022-00379-w.

Transplant administration-A survey of the roles and responsibilities of kidney and pancreas medical directors of US transplant centers.

The current American Society of Transplantation (AST) accredited transplant fellowship programs in the United States provide no structured formal training in leadership and administration which is essential for successfully running a transplant program. We conducted a survey of medical directors of active adult kidney and kidney-pancreas transplant programs in the United States about their demographics, training pathways, and roles and responsibilities. The survey was emailed to 183 medical directors, and 123 (67.2%) completed the survey. A majority of respondents were older than 50 years (61%), males (80%), and holding that position for more than 10 years (47%). Only 51% of current medical directors had taken that position after completing a one-year transplant fellowship, and 58% took on the role with no prior administrative or leadership experience. The medical directors reported spending a median 50%-75% of time in clinical responsibilities, 25%-50% of time in administration, and 0%-25% time in research. The survey also captured various administrative roles of medical directors vis-à-vis other transplant leaders. The study, designed to be the starting point of an improvement initiative of the AST, provided important insight into the demographics, training pathways, roles and responsibilities, job satisfaction, education needs, and training gaps of current medical directors.

Financial Feasibility Analysis of a Culturally and Linguistically Competent Hispanic Kidney Transplant Program.

BACKGROUND: In 2006, Northwestern Medicine implemented a culturally targeted and linguistically congruent Hispanic Kidney Transplant Program (HKTP). The HKTP has been associated with a reduction in Hispanic/Latino disparities in live donor kidney transplantation. This article assessed the financial feasibility of implementing the HKTP intervention at 2 other transplant centers. METHODS: We examined the impact of the HKTP on staffing costs compared with the total transplant center costs using data from monthly time studies conducted among transplant staff involved in the HKTP. Time studies were conducted during the HKTP preimplementation (2016) and implementation (2017) phases. Labor costs were estimated using data from the time studies and mean salaries from the Department of Labor. We retrospectively examined kidney acquisition and transplant costs at both centers in 2016 and 2017 using data from the Medicare cost reports. RESULTS: During preimplementation, center A staff (n = 21) committed 764 hours ($44 607), and center B staff (n = 15) committed 800 hours ($45 193) to establish the HKTP. During implementation, center A staff (n = 19) committed 1125 hours ($55 594), and center B staff (n = 24) committed 1396 hours ($64 170), in delivering the HKTP. Overall, the total costs from the staffing time involved in the HKTP encompassed <1.0% per year (2016 and 2017) of each center's annual total costs. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest the financial feasibility of implementing the HKTP and present a potential business case for the HKTP's implementation at other transplant centers to reduce health disparities in live donor kidney transplantation.

Implementing culturally competent transplant care and implications for reducing health disparities: A prospective qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Despite available evidence-based interventions that decrease health disparities, these interventions are often not implemented. Northwestern Medicine's® Hispanic Kidney Transplant Program (HKTP) is a culturally and linguistically competent intervention designed to reduce disparities in living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) among Hispanics/Latinos. The HKTP was introduced in two transplant programs in 2016 to evaluate its effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed barriers and facilitators to HKTP implementation preparation. METHODS: Interviews and group discussions were conducted with transplant stakeholders (ie administrators, nurses, physicians) during implementation preparation. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided interview design and qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Forty-four stakeholders participated in 24 interviews and/or 27 group discussions. New factors, not found in previous implementation preparation research in health-care settings, emerged as facilitators and barriers to the implementation of culturally competent care. Implementation facilitators included: stakeholders' focus on a moral imperative to implement the HKTP, personal motivations related to their Hispanic heritage, and perceptions of Hispanic patients' transplant education needs. Implementation barriers included: stakeholders' perceptions that Hispanics' health insurance payer mix would negatively impact revenue, a lack of knowledge about LDKT disparities and patient data disaggregated by ethnicity/race, and a perception that the family discussion component was immoral because of the possibility of coercion. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified novel barriers and facilitators to the implementation preparation of a culturally competent care intervention. Healthcare administrators can facilitate organizations' implementation of culturally competent care interventions by understanding factors challenging care delivery processes and raising clinical team awareness of disparities in LDKT.

Billing for living kidney donor care: Balancing cost recovery, regulatory compliance, and minimized donor burden.

PURPOSE: To provide standardized guidance for transplant programs to maximize financial reimbursement related to living donor care, and to minimize financial consequences of evaluation, surgical and follow-up care to living donor candidates and donors. RECENT FINDINGS: In 2014, the American Society for Transplantation (AST) Live Donor Community of Practice (LDCOP) "Consensus Conference on Best Practices in Live Kidney Donation" identified inconsistencies in billing practices as a barrier to living donor financial neutrality, and issued a strong recommendation that the transplant community actively pursue strategies and policies to make living donation a financially neutral act, within the framework of federal law. The LDCOP convened a multidisciplinary group of experts to review and synthesize current Medicare regulations and commercial payer practices related to billing for living donor care, and the implications for transplant programs and patients. We developed guidance for transplant program staff related to strategies to consistently and appropriately obtain reimbursement via the Medicare Cost Report by utilizing organ acquisition; coordinate available coverage for donor pretesting, evaluation, hospitalization, follow-up care, and complications; coordinate charges in kidney paired donation; and maximize coverage through private insurance contracting. We also offer recommendations to protect donor confidentiality in the context of billing, and to educate and prepare donor candidates and donors about any remaining gaps in coverage related to donation. SUMMARY: Best practices in billing for living donation-related care should focus on balancing cost recovery, regulatory compliance, and minimized donor burden. Herein we offer 9 recommendations for best practice. We also offer a platform of 7 recommendations for research & advocacy efforts to better understand the climate of living donor medical costs, and to optimize billing practices that support provision of living donor transplant services to all patients who can benefit and to achieve financial neutrality for living donors.

Effect of a Mobile Web App on Kidney Transplant Candidates' Knowledge About Increased Risk Donor Kidneys: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplant candidates (KTCs) must provide informed consent to accept kidneys from increased risk donors (IRD), but poorly understand them. We conducted a multisite, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of a mobile Web application, Inform Me, for increasing knowledge about IRDs. METHODS: Kidney transplant candidates undergoing transplant evaluation at 2 transplant centers were randomized to use Inform Me after routine transplant education (intervention) or routine transplant education alone (control). Computer adaptive learning method reinforced learning by embedding educational material, and initial (test 1) and additional test questions (test 2) into each chapter. Knowledge (primary outcome) was assessed in person after education (tests 1 and 2), and 1 week later by telephone (test 3). Controls did not receive test 2. Willingness to accept an IRD kidney (secondary outcome) was assessed after tests 1 and 3. Linear regression test 1 knowledge scores were used to test the significance of Inform Me exposure after controlling for covariates. Multiple imputation was used for intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-eight KTCs participated. Intervention participants had higher test 1 knowledge scores (mean difference, 6.61; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 5.37-7.86) than control participants, representing a 44% higher score than control participants' scores. Intervention participants' knowledge scores increased with educational reinforcement (test 2) compared with control arm test 1 scores (mean difference, 9.50; 95% CI, 8.27-10.73). After 1 week, intervention participants' knowledge remained greater than controls' knowledge (mean difference, 3.63; 95% CI, 2.49-4.78) (test 3). Willingness to accept an IRD kidney did not differ between study arms at tests 1 and 3. CONCLUSIONS: Inform Me use was associated with greater KTC knowledge about IRD kidneys above routine transplant education alone.

Nursing and transplant coordination: a call for clarity.

Organ transplantation is a complex and highly regulated field. This review focuses on the role of nurses and transplant coordinators in solid organ transplantation, excluding both inpatient staff nursing and procurement activities. The literature describes a robust and autonomous transplant coordinator role; a key member of the multidisciplinary transplant team. Transplant coordinators facilitate patient care throughout all phases of transplantation. However, a lack of consensus on licensure and educational preparation of these important practitioners was evident from the review of literature. Synthesis of the data suggests that the role of transplant coordinator is not distinct but a description of a wide variety of functions, duties, and tasks that require varying levels of licensure and educational preparation. Greater clarity for both practitioners and consumers could be achieved by creating certification levels similar to nephrology nurses. As no transplant-specific staffing models or benchmarks were discovered, rigorous research regarding optimal staffing patterns is also recommended.

The economic impact of MELD on liver transplant centers.

Adoption of the model for end stage liver disease (MELD) system prioritized patients awaiting liver transplant (LT) by severity of illness including progressive renal dysfunction. Unfortunately, current reimbursement for LT is not adjusted by severity of illness or need for simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation (LKT). This study examines hospital cost and reimbursement for LT and LKT to determine the effect of MELD on transplant center (TC) financial outcomes given current reimbursement practices as well as DRG outlier threshold limits. LT was performed for 86 adults prior to and 127 following the implementation of MELD. Between the eras, there was a substantial increase in the average laboratory MELD score (17.1 to 20.7 p=0.004) and percentage of LKTs performed (5.8% to 17.3% p=0.01). Increasing MELD score was associated with higher costs ($4309 per MELD point p<0.001) and decreasing TC net income ($1512 per MELD point p<0.001). In patients not achieving the Medicare outlier status, predicted net loss was $17,700 for high-MELD patients and $19,133 for those needing LKT. In conclusion, contractual reimbursement agreements that are not indexed by severity of disease may not reflect the increased costs resulting from the MELD system. Even with outlier thresholds, Medicare reimbursement is inadequate resulting in a net loss for the TC.