Impact of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Final Rule on Organ Procurement Organization Metrics and Procedural Trends in the Procurement of Pancreata for Research.

OBJECTIVE: Pancreata recovered for research are included as a success (or positive) in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) donation and organ transplantation rate metrics for recertification of organ procurement organizations (OPOs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Given these metrics directly incentivize recovery of pancreata for research, this study tracks trends in recovery of pancreata for research across the implementation of the CMS metrics. RESULTS: In the 26 months before the December 2, 2020, publication of the CMS metrics, research pancreata as a percent of organs transplanted, including research pancreata, was 1.7% nationally, including as much as 10.8% of organs transplanted within any OPO. In the 26 months after the CMS metrics were published, research pancreata increased to 5.1% of organs counted as transplants nationally, including as much as 20.3% within any OPO. If research pancreata were excluded from the CMS metrics, 6 OPOs would change their CMS evaluation status for recertification purposes: 2 would move up a tier and 4 would move down a tier. CONCLUSIONS: Procurement of research pancreata has increased since the publication of the CMS performance metrics, OPOs vary in their recovery of pancreata for research, and recovery of pancreata for research can affect recertification of OPOs.

OPTN/SRTR 2021 Annual Data Report: Deceased Organ Donation.

The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients uses data collected by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network to calculate metrics such as donation rate, organ yield, and rate of organs recovered for transplant but not transplanted (ie, nonuse). In 2021, there were 13,862 deceased donors, a 10.1% increase from 12,588 in 2020, and an increase from 11,870 in 2019; this number has been increasing since 2010. The number of deceased donor transplants increased to 41,346 transplants in 2021, a 5.9% increase from 39,028 in 2020; this number has been increasing since 2012. The increase may be due in part to the rising number of deaths of young people amid the ongoing opioid epidemic. The number of organs transplanted included 9,702 left kidneys, 9,509 right kidneys, 551 en bloc kidneys, 964 pancreata, 8,595 livers, 96 intestines, 3,861 hearts, and 2,443 lungs. Compared with 2019, transplants of all organs except lungs increased in 2021, which is remarkable as this occurred despite the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2021, 2,951 left kidneys, 3,149 right kidneys, 184 en bloc kidneys, 343 pancreata, 945 liver, 1 intestine, 39 hearts, and 188 lungs were not used. These numbers suggest an opportunity to increase numbers of transplants by reducing nonused organs. Despite the pandemic, there was no dramatic increase in number of nonused organs and there was an increase in total numbers of donors and transplants. The new Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services metrics for donation rate and transplant rate have also been described and vary across organ procurement organizations; the donation rate metric varied from 5.82 to 19.14 and the transplant rate metric varied from 18.7 to 60.0.

Cost, healthcare utilization, and outcomes of antibody-mediated rejection in kidney transplant recipients in the US.

BACKGROUND: Antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) is one of the leading causes of graft loss in kidney transplant recipients but little is known about the associated cost and healthcare burden of AMR. METHODS: We developed an algorithm to detect AMR using the 2006-2011 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) using ICD-10 and billing codes as there is no specific ICD-10 or procedure code for AMR. We then compared healthcare utilization, cost, and risk of graft failure or death in AMR. patients versus matched controls. RESULTS: The algorithm had a 39.4% true-positive rate (69/175) and a 4.1% false-positive rate (110/2,655). We identified 5,679/101,554 (5.6%) with AMR, who had a nearly 3-fold higher risk of graft failure (hazard ratio [HR], 2.75, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.50 to 3.03; p < .0001) and death (HR, 2.59; 95% CI, 2.35 to 2.86; p < .0001) at 2 years, nearly 5 times the hospitalizations in the 60 d before AMR diagnosis, and increased nephrology and emergency department visits. Mean AMR attributable healthcare costs were 4 times higher than matched controls, at $13,066 more per patient in the 60 d before AMR diagnosis and $35,740 per patient per year higher in the 2 years after AMR diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: US kidney transplant recipients with AMR have substantially greater healthcare utilization and higher costs and risk of graft loss and mortality.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' proposed metrics for recertification of organ procurement organizations: Evaluation by the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients.

On December 23, 2019, the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services proposed 2 new standards that organ procurement organizations (OPOs) must meet for recertification. An OPO's organ donation rate (deceased donors/potential donors) and organ transplant rate (organs transplanted/potential donors) must not fall significantly below the 75th percentile for rates among all OPOs. We examined how OPOs would have fared under the proposed performance standards in 2016-2017. Data on donors and transplants were from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network; donor potential was estimated from Detailed Multiple Cause of Death data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2017, 31 (53%) OPOs failed to meet the proposed donation rate standard, 36 (62%) failed to meet the proposed organ transplant rate standard, and 37 (64%) failed at least 1 standard. We found that adjusting for age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity altered the evaluation: 8 OPOs changed their pass/fail status for the donation rate and 5 for the proposed organ transplant rate standard. We conclude that the proposed new standards may result in over half of OPOs facing decertification, and risk adjustment suggests that underlying characteristics of deaths vary regionally such that decertification decisions may be affected.

Liver sharing and organ procurement organization performance under redistricted allocation.

Concerns have been raised that optimized redistricting of liver allocation areas might have the unintended result of shifting livers from better-performing to poorer-performing organ procurement organizations (OPOs). We used liver simulated allocation modeling to simulate a 5-year period of liver sharing within either 4 or 8 optimized districts. We investigated whether each OPO's net liver import under redistricting would be correlated with 2 OPO performance metrics (observed to expected liver yield and liver donor conversion ratio), along with 2 other potential correlates (eligible deaths and incident listings above a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 15). We found no evidence that livers would flow from better-performing OPOs to poorer-performing OPOs in either redistricting scenario. Instead, under these optimized redistricting plans, our simulations suggest that livers would flow from OPOs with more-than-expected eligible deaths toward those with fewer-than-expected eligible deaths and that livers would flow from OPOs with fewer-than-expected incident listings to those with more-than-expected incident listings; the latter is a pattern that is already established in the current allocation system. Redistricting liver distribution to reduce geographic inequity is expected to align liver allocation across the country with the distribution of supply and demand rather than transferring livers from better-performing OPOs to poorer-performing OPOs.

Liver sharing and organ procurement organization performance.

Whether the liver allocation system shifts organs from better performing organ procurement organizations (OPOs) to poorer performing OPOs has been debated for many years. Models of OPO performance from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients make it possible to study this question in a data-driven manner. We investigated whether each OPO's net liver import was correlated with 2 performance metrics [observed to expected (O:E) liver yield and liver donor conversion ratio] as well as 2 alternative explanations [eligible deaths and incident listings above a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of 15]. We found no evidence to support the hypothesis that the allocation system transfers livers from better performing OPOs to centers with poorer performing OPOs. Also, having fewer eligible deaths was not associated with a net import. However, having more incident listings was strongly correlated with the net import, both before and after Share 35. Most importantly, the magnitude of the variation in OPO performance was much lower than the variation in demand: although the poorest performing OPOs differed from the best ones by less than 2-fold in the O:E liver yield, incident listings above a MELD score of 15 varied nearly 14-fold. Although it is imperative that all OPOs achieve the best possible results, the flow of livers is not explained by OPO performance metrics, and instead, it appears to be strongly related to differences in demand.