1
|
Zhang C, Mathur AK. Breaking Barriers and Bridging Gaps: Advancing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Kidney Transplant Care for Black and Hispanic Patients in the United States. Transpl Int 2023; 36:11455. [PMID: 37829616 PMCID: PMC10565005 DOI: 10.3389/ti.2023.11455] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2023] [Accepted: 09/15/2023] [Indexed: 10/14/2023]
Abstract
Kidney transplantation offers better mortality and quality of life outcomes to patients with end-stage renal failure compared to dialysis. Specifically, living donor kidney transplantation is the best treatment for end-stage renal disease, since it offers the greatest survival benefit compared to deceased donor kidney transplant or dialysis. However, not all patients from all racial/ethnic backgrounds enjoy these benefits. While black and Hispanic patients bear the predominant disease burden within the United States, they represent less than half of all kidney transplants in the country. Other factors such as cultural barriers that proliferate myths about transplant, financial costs that impede altruistic donation, and even biological predispositions create a complex maze and can also perpetuate care inaccessibility. Therefore, blanket efforts to increase the overall donation pool may not extend access to vulnerable populations, who may require more targeted attention and interventions. This review uses US kidney transplantation data to substantiate accessibility differences amongst racial minorities as well as provides examples of successful institutional and national systemic level changes that have improved transplantation outcomes for all.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chi Zhang
- Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, United States
- Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Managing the Costs of Routine Follow-up Care After Living Kidney Donation: a Review and Survey of Contemporary Experience, Practices, and Challenges. CURRENT TRANSPLANTATION REPORTS 2022; 9:328-335. [PMID: 36187071 PMCID: PMC9510404 DOI: 10.1007/s40472-022-00379-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/12/2022] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
3
|
Equity or Equality? Which Approach Brings More Satisfaction in a Kidney-Exchange Chain? J Pers Med 2021; 11:jpm11121383. [PMID: 34945855 PMCID: PMC8709455 DOI: 10.3390/jpm11121383] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/13/2021] [Revised: 12/12/2021] [Accepted: 12/14/2021] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
In United States (U.S.), government-funded organizations, such as NLDAC, reimburse travel and subsistence expenses incurred during living-organ donation process. However, in Iran, there is a non-governmental organization called Iranian Kidney Foundation (IKF) that funds the direct and indirect costs of donors through charitable donations and contributions from participants in the exchange program. In this article, for countries outside the U.S. that currently use an equality approach, we propose a potential new compensation-apportionment approach (equitable approach) for kidney-exchange chains and compare it with the currently available system (equality approach) in terms of the apportionment of compensation in a kidney-exchange chain to cover the expenses incurred by the initiating living donor of the chain in the act of donation. To this end, we propose a mechanism to apportion compensation among all participating pairs based on the equity approach by utilizing a prediction model to calculate the probability of graft survival in each transplant operation. These probabilities are then used to define the utility of any transplantation, considering the quality of each pair’s donated and received kidney in the chain. Afterward, the corresponding cost is apportioned by a mechanism based on the normalized differences between the utility of donated and received kidneys for each incompatible pair of the chain. In summary, we demonstrate that by utilizing the equitable approach, there is more fairness and equity in the allocation of resources in organ-procurement systems, which results in more satisfaction among incompatible pairs. Additional future prospective studies are needed to assess this proposed equitable approach for kidney-exchange chains in countries outside the U.S., such as Iran, that currently use an equality approach.
Collapse
|
4
|
Lentine KL, Mannon RB, Mandelbrot D. Understanding and Overcoming Financial Risks for Living Organ Donors. Am J Kidney Dis 2021; 79:159-161. [PMID: 34872794 DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2021.09.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/07/2021] [Accepted: 09/09/2021] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Krista L Lentine
- Center for Abdominal Transplantation, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
| | - Roslyn B Mannon
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Nebraska, Omaha, Nebraska
| | - Didier Mandelbrot
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Zhuang J, Guidry A. A Content Analysis of Living Organ Donation Materials from Certified Transplant Centers. HEALTH COMMUNICATION 2021; 36:2002-2009. [PMID: 32847410 DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2020.1813392] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
Despite the fact that living organ donation has the great potential to reduce the shortage of transplantable organs, it is still surrounded by many misconceptions, ethical concerns, and myths. Research conducted to understand factors contributing to public misconceptions related to living organ donation is rare. This research takes a content analytic approach to uncover how living organ donation is portrayed in materials developed and delivered by transplant centers across 11 regions. A total of 332 unique materials were analyzed. The results revealed that living kidney donation dominated the corpus of data whereas other living organ donations were largely overlooked. Benefits and risks associated with living organ donation were relatively evenly presented; however, social support necessary to donors and recipients and available resources to obtain social support were not sufficiently addressed. Embedded in these materials were 46 personal narrative stories. Analysis of these stories showed a focus on undirected living organ donation and revealed a wide range of emotional experiences. Significant regional differences were found in several themes, such as benefits and risks, and social support. Inconsistent information regarding living organ donation was present. Practical implications are discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jie Zhuang
- Department of Communication Studies, Bob Schieffer College of Communication, Texas Christian University
| | - Ashley Guidry
- Department of Communication Studies, Bob Schieffer College of Communication, Texas Christian University
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Tietjen A, Hays R, McNatt G, Howey R, Lebron-Banks U, Thomas CP, Lentine KL. Billing for living kidney donor care: Balancing cost recovery, regulatory compliance, and minimized donor burden. CURRENT TRANSPLANTATION REPORTS 2019; 6:155-166. [PMID: 31214485 PMCID: PMC6580854 DOI: 10.1007/s40472-019-00239-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Tietjen
- American Society of Transplantation (AST) Living Donor Community of Practice (LDCOP)
- Saint Barnabas Medical Center, Livingston, NJ
| | - Rebecca Hays
- American Society of Transplantation (AST) Living Donor Community of Practice (LDCOP)
- University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, Division of Surgery, Madison, WI
| | - Gwen McNatt
- American Society of Transplantation (AST) Living Donor Community of Practice (LDCOP)
- Kovler Organ Transplantation Center, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, IL
| | - Robert Howey
- American Society of Transplantation (AST) Living Donor Community of Practice (LDCOP)
- Toyon Associates, Concord, CA
| | - Ursula Lebron-Banks
- American Society of Transplantation (AST) Living Donor Community of Practice (LDCOP)
- New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY
| | - Christie P. Thomas
- American Society of Transplantation (AST) Living Donor Community of Practice (LDCOP)
- University of Iowa Transplant Institute, Iowa City, IA
| | - Krista L. Lentine
- American Society of Transplantation (AST) Living Donor Community of Practice (LDCOP)
- Saint Louis University Center for Abdominal Transplantation, St. Louis, MO
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Lentine KL, Lam NN, Segev DL. Risks of Living Kidney Donation: Current State of Knowledge on Outcomes Important to Donors. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2019; 14:597-608. [PMID: 30858158 PMCID: PMC6450354 DOI: 10.2215/cjn.11220918] [Citation(s) in RCA: 80] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
In the past decade, there have been increasing efforts to better define and quantify the short- and long-term risks of living kidney donation. Recent studies have expanded upon the previous literature by focusing on outcomes that are important to potential and previous donors, applying unique databases and/or registries to follow large cohorts of donors for longer periods of time, and comparing outcomes with healthy nondonor controls to estimate attributable risks of donation. Leading outcomes important to living kidney donors include kidney health, surgical risks, and psychosocial effects of donation. Recent data support that living donors may experience a small increased risk of severe CKD and ESKD compared with healthy nondonors. For most donors, the 15-year risk of kidney failure is <1%, but for certain populations, such as young, black men, this risk may be higher. New risk prediction tools that combine the effects of demographic and health factors, and innovations in genetic risk markers are improving kidney risk stratification. Minor perioperative complications occur in 10%-20% of donor nephrectomy cases, but major complications occur in <3%, and the risk of perioperative death is <0.03%. Generally, living kidney donors have similar or improved psychosocial outcomes, such as quality of life, after donation compared with before donation and compared with nondonors. Although the donation process should be financially neutral, living kidney donors may experience out-of-pocket expenses and lost wages that may or may not be completely covered through regional or national reimbursement programs, and may face difficulties arranging subsequent life and health insurance. Living kidney donors should be fully informed of the perioperative and long-term risks before making their decision to donate. Follow-up care allows for preventative care measures to mitigate risk and ongoing surveillance and reporting of donor outcomes to inform prior and future living kidney donors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Krista L Lentine
- Saint Louis University Center for Abdominal Transplantation, St. Louis, Missouri; .,Department of Medicine, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Ngan N Lam
- Division of Nephrology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; and
| | - Dorry L Segev
- Department of Surgery and .,Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Trachtman H, Parent B, Kirshenbaum A, Caplan A. Physician Attitudes Toward Living Kidney Donation. Prog Transplant 2019; 29:78-83. [DOI: 10.1177/1526924818817063] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/30/2023]
Abstract
Background: Compared to dialysis, living kidney donation has a greater chance of restoring health and is associated with better outcomes than deceased kidney donation. Although physicians advocate for this treatment, it is uncertain how they would act as potential living kidney donors or recipients. Methods: We surveyed 104 physicians, pediatric, and internal medicine nephrologists, to ascertain their attitudes toward living donation. Results: Among surveyed nephrologists, there was nearly universal support for living kidney donation as a viable medical option, and nearly all of them would support a healthy and medically cleared patient who wishes to participate. Although support was still strong, nephrologists were significantly less likely to support their friends and relatives participating in living kidney donation, and their support declined further for friends and relatives donating to nonrelatives. Conclusion: Our findings suggest the need to more deeply examine physician-perceived risks involved in serving as a living kidney donor. Based on differences in surveyed nephrologist attitudes regarding donation to and from loved ones versus nonrelatives, we suggest that physicians should give careful consideration to how they describe the risks of living donation to potential donors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Howard Trachtman
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Pediatrics, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA
| | - Brendan Parent
- Division of Bioethics, Department of Population Health, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA
| | - Ari Kirshenbaum
- Department of Psychology & Neuroscience Program, Saint Michael’s College, Colchester, VT, USA
| | - Arthur Caplan
- Division of Bioethics, Department of Population Health, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Lentine KL, Mandelbrot D. Moving from Intuition to Data: Building the Evidence to Support and Increase Living Donor Kidney Transplantation. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2017; 12:1383-1385. [PMID: 28818848 PMCID: PMC5586575 DOI: 10.2215/cjn.07150717] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Krista L. Lentine
- Center for Abdominal Transplantation, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; and
| | - Didier Mandelbrot
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine, Madison, Wisconsin
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Lentine KL, Kasiske BL, Levey AS, Adams PL, Alberú J, Bakr MA, Gallon L, Garvey CA, Guleria S, Li PKT, Segev DL, Taler SJ, Tanabe K, Wright L, Zeier MG, Cheung M, Garg AX. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors. Transplantation 2017; 101:S1-S109. [PMID: 28742762 PMCID: PMC5540357 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000001769] [Citation(s) in RCA: 198] [Impact Index Per Article: 28.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2017] [Accepted: 03/20/2017] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
The 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors is intended to assist medical professionals who evaluate living kidney donor candidates and provide care before, during and after donation. The guideline development process followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies that included critical appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations. However, many recommendations, for which there was no evidence or no systematic search for evidence was undertaken by the Evidence Review Team, were issued as ungraded expert opinion recommendations. The guideline work group concluded that a comprehensive approach to risk assessment should replace decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation. Original data analyses were undertaken to produce a "proof-in-concept" risk-prediction model for kidney failure to support a framework for quantitative risk assessment in the donor candidate evaluation and defensible shared decision making. This framework is grounded in the simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics. The processes and framework for the donor candidate evaluation are presented, along with recommendations for optimal care before, during, and after donation. Limitations of the evidence are discussed, especially regarding the lack of definitive prospective studies and clinical outcome trials. Suggestions for future research, including the need for continued refinement of long-term risk prediction and novel approaches to estimating donation-attributable risks, are also provided.In citing this document, the following format should be used: Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Living Kidney Donor Work Group. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors. Transplantation. 2017;101(Suppl 8S):S1-S109.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Josefina Alberú
- Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Dorry L. Segev
- Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|