1
|
Mandell RJ, Smith AR, Gifford KA, Hong BA, Goodrich NP, Mathur AK, Fava MA, Ojo AO, Merion RM. How Do Financial Obstacles Affect Decision-Making Among Potential Living Organ Donors? Prog Transplant 2024:15269248241268679. [PMID: 39090998 DOI: 10.1177/15269248241268679] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/04/2024]
Abstract
Introduction: Living donation increases the organ supply, but associated non-medical expenses can disincentivize donation. Programs aimed at increasing living donation need to better understand how financial obstacles, including lost wages, impact the decision to pursue donation. Methods/Approach: Forty-eight interviews were conducted and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Findings: Three key themes were identified that influenced decision-making: emotional attachment, temporal flexibility, and job security. These themes emerged when dividing interview participants into 3 groups: close relationship donors, broader network donors, and non-directed donors, representing donation to a family member or friend, a specific person they do not know well or at all, or a non-specified individual, respectively. Most close relationship donors wanted to donate regardless of personal financial cost, based on emotional attachment to the recipient. Wage reimbursement did not typically affect their decision-making but could reduce stress. Since non-directed donors did not donate to a specific individual, they could wait to achieve financial stability before donating, if needed. While wage reimbursement might create more proximate stability, non-directed donors had the flexibility to postpone donations until they could independently achieve financial stability. Lacking emotional attachment and temporal flexibility, broader network donors were particularly active decision-makers and most influenced by wage reimbursement. Across all groups, donors with job security were more resolute about donating. Conclusion: The findings underscore the importance of lost wage reimbursement to facilitate donation and reduce stress, and policies to protect donor job security.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Barry A Hong
- Department of Psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
| | | | | | - Melissa A Fava
- Arbor Research Collaborative for Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Akinlolu O Ojo
- University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Smith AR, Mandell RJ, Goodrich NP, Helmuth ME, Wiseman JB, Gifford KA, Fava MA, Ojo AO, Merion RM, Mathur AK. Living Donor Decision-Making and the Complex Interplay of Finances and Other Motivators, Barriers, and Facilitators. Clin Transplant 2024; 38:e15377. [PMID: 38952192 DOI: 10.1111/ctr.15377] [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: 05/10/2023] [Revised: 05/22/2024] [Accepted: 05/30/2024] [Indexed: 07/03/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The decision to become a living donor requires consideration of a complex, interactive array of factors that could be targeted for clinical, policy, and educational interventions. Our objective was to assess how financial barriers interact with motivators, other barriers, and facilitators during this process. METHODS Data were obtained from a public survey assessing motivators, barriers, and facilitators of living donation. We used multivariable logistic regression and consensus k-means clustering to assess interactions between financial concerns and other considerations in the decision-making process. RESULTS Among 1592 respondents, the average age was 43; 74% were female and 14% and 6% identified as Hispanic and Black, respectively. Among employed respondents (72%), 40% indicated that they would not be able to donate without lost wage reimbursement. Stronger agreement with worries about expenses and dependent care challenges was associated with not being able to donate without lost wage reimbursement (OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.0-1.3; OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.1-1.3, respectively). Four respondent clusters were identified. Cluster 1 had strong motivators and facilitators with minimal barriers. Cluster 2 had barriers related to health concerns, nervousness, and dependent care. Clusters 3 and 4 had financial barriers. Cluster 3 also had anxiety related to surgery and dependent care. CONCLUSIONS Financial barriers interact primarily with health and dependent care concerns when considering living organ donation. Targeted interventions to reduce financial barriers and improve provider communication regarding donation-related risks are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Abigail R Smith
- Arbor Research Collaborative for Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
- Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | | | | | - Margaret E Helmuth
- Arbor Research Collaborative for Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
- University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | | | | | - Melissa A Fava
- Arbor Research Collaborative for Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | | | - Robert M Merion
- Arbor Research Collaborative for Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
- University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Mathur AK, Goodrich N, Hong B, Smith AR, Mandell RJ, Warren PH, Gifford KA, Ojo AO, Merion RM. Use of Federal Reimbursement for Living Donor Costs by Racial and Ethnic Minorities: Implications for Disparities in Access to Living Donor Transplantation. Transplantation 2024:00007890-990000000-00758. [PMID: 38771064 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000005013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/22/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Minority race, ethnicity, and financial barriers are associated with lower rates of living donor (LD) kidney transplantation (LDKT). Financial reimbursement for LD costs may impact social determinants of health and, therefore, impact disparities in access to LDKT. METHODS Among US LDKTs, we studied associations between racial and ethnic minority status and utilization of the National Living Donor Assistance Center (NLDAC), a means-tested reimbursement program for nonmedical LD costs. We analyzed demographic, clinical, income, and survey data from NLDAC and the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2022) to identify predictors of NLDAC utilization. RESULTS Among 70 069 US LDKTs, 6093 NLDAC applicants were identified (9% of US LDKTs). Racial and ethnic minorities were over-represented in NLDAC-supported LDKTs compared with non-NLDAC US LDKTs (Black donors 12% versus 9%; Black recipients 15% versus 12%; Hispanic donors 21% versus 14%; Hispanic recipients 23% versus 15%; all P < 0.001). Among preemptive transplants, use of NLDAC by donors to Hispanic recipients (11%) was nearly twice as high as that of non-Hispanic recipients (6%) (P < 0.001). At time of NLDAC application, 72% stated NLDAC "will make it possible" to donate; higher proportions of minority applicants agreed (Black 80%, White 70%, P < 0.001; Hispanic 79%, non-Hispanic 70%, P < 0.001). Racial and ethnic minority-concordant transplants were significantly more likely to use NLDAC (donor/recipient: Black/Black risk-adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.85, other/other OR 2.59, Hispanic/Hispanic OR 1.53; all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS Reduction of LD financial barriers may increase access to LDKT, particularly in racial and ethnic minority communities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amit K Mathur
- Division of Transplant Surgery, Mayo Clinic in Arizona, Phoenix, AZ
| | | | - Barry Hong
- Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
| | - Abigail R Smith
- Arbor Research Collaborative for Health, Ann Arbor, MI
- Division of Biostatistics, Department of Preventative Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Kaplan A, Aby ES, Scott S, Sonnenday C, Fox A, Mathur A, Olthoff K, Heimbach J, Ladin K, Emamaullee J. Financial toxicity in living donor liver transplantation: A call to action for financial neutrality. Am J Transplant 2024:S1600-6135(24)00337-X. [PMID: 38763318 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajt.2024.05.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2024] [Revised: 04/22/2024] [Accepted: 05/14/2024] [Indexed: 05/21/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alyson Kaplan
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Transplant Institute, Tufts University Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Elizabeth S Aby
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Sonia Scott
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
| | | | - Alyson Fox
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Amit Mathur
- Department of Transplant Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | - Kim Olthoff
- Department of Transplant Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Julie Heimbach
- Department of Transplant Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Keren Ladin
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Transplant Institute, Tufts University Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Juliet Emamaullee
- Department of Transplant Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Al Ammary F, Muzaale AD, Tantisattamoa E, Hanna RM, Reddy UG, Bunnapradist S, Kalantar-Zadeh K. Changing landscape of living kidney donation and the role of telemedicine. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 2023; 32:81-88. [PMID: 36444666 PMCID: PMC9713599 DOI: 10.1097/mnh.0000000000000848] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW There has been a decline in living kidney donation over the last two decades. Donors from low-income families or racial/ethnic minorities face greater disproportionate geographic, financial, and logistical barriers to completing lengthy and complex evaluations. This has contributed to the decreased proportion of these subgroups. The authors view telemedicine as a potential solution to this problem. RECENT FINDINGS Since the initial decline of donors in 2005, biologically related donors have experienced a lack of growth across race/ethnicity. Conversely, unrelated donors have emerged as the majority of donors in recent years across race/ethnicity, except for unrelated black donors. Disparities in access to living kidney donation persist. Telemedicine using live-video visits can overcome barriers to access transplant centers and facilitate care coordination. In a U.S. survey, nephrologists, surgeons, coordinators, social workers, and psychologists/psychologists across transplant centers are favorably disposed to use telemedicine for donor evaluation/follow-up beyond the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. However, with the waning of relaxed telemedicine regulations under the Public Health Emergency, providers perceive payor policy and out-of-state licensing as major factors hindering telemedicine growth prospects. SUMMARY Permanent federal and state policies that support telemedicine services for living kidney donation can enhance access to transplant centers and help overcome barriers to donor evaluation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fawaz Al Ammary
- Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Abimereki D. Muzaale
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | | | - Ramy M. Hanna
- Department of Medicine, University of California Irvine, Orange, California
| | - Uttam G. Reddy
- Department of Medicine, University of California Irvine, Orange, California
| | - Suphamai Bunnapradist
- Department of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Al Ammary F, Motter JD, Sung HC, Lentine KL, Sharfuddin A, Kumar V, Yadav A, Doshi MD, Virmani S, Concepcion BP, Grace T, Sidoti CN, Yahya Jan M, Muzaale AD, Wolf J. Telemedicine services for living kidney donation: A US survey of multidisciplinary providers. Am J Transplant 2022; 22:2041-2051. [PMID: 35575439 PMCID: PMC9543040 DOI: 10.1111/ajt.17093] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2022] [Revised: 04/13/2022] [Accepted: 05/08/2022] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
Individuals considering living kidney donation face geographic, financial, and logistical challenges. Telemedicine can facilitate healthcare access/care coordination. Yet difficulties exist in telemedicine implementation and sustainability. We sought to examine centers' practices and providers' attitudes toward telemedicine to improve services for donors. We surveyed multidisciplinary providers from 194 active adult US living donor kidney transplant centers; 293 providers from 128 unique centers responded to the survey (center representation rate = 66.0%), reflecting 83.9% of practice by donor volume and 91.5% of US states/territories. Most centers (70.3%) plan to continue using telemedicine beyond the pandemic for donor evaluation/follow-up. Video was mostly used by nephrologists, surgeons, and psychiatrists/psychologists. Telephone and video were mostly used by social workers, while video or telephone was equally used by coordinators. Half of respondent nephrologists and surgeons were willing to accept a remote completion of physical exam; 68.3% of respondent psychiatrists/psychologists and social workers were willing to accept a remote completion of mental status exam. Providers strongly agreed that telemedicine was convenient for donors and would improve the likelihood of completing donor evaluation. However, providers (65.5%) perceived out-of-state licensing as a key policy/regulatory barrier. These findings help inform practice and underscore the instigation of policies to remove barriers using telemedicine to increase living kidney donation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fawaz Al Ammary
- Department of MedicineJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreMarylandUSA
| | | | - Hannah C. Sung
- Department of SurgeryJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreMarylandUSA
| | | | - Asif Sharfuddin
- Department of MedicineIndiana UniversityIndianapolisIndianaUSA
| | - Vineeta Kumar
- Department of MedicineUniversity of AlabamaBirminghamAlabamaUSA
| | - Anju Yadav
- Department of MedicineThomas Jefferson UniversityPhiladelphiaPennsylvaniaUSA
| | - Mona D. Doshi
- Department of MedicineUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborMichiganUSA
| | - Sarthak Virmani
- Department of MedicineYale UniversityNew HavenConnecticutUSA
| | | | - Terry Grace
- Department of MedicineWake Forest Baptist HealthWinston‐SalemNorth CarolinaUSA
| | | | | | | | - Joshua Wolf
- Piedmont Transplant InstituteAtlantaGeorgiaUSA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Park S, Park J, Kang E, Lee JW, Kim Y, Park M, Kim K, Kim HJ, Han M, Cho JH, Lee JP, Lee S, Kim SW, Park SM, Chae DW, Chin HJ, Kim YC, Kim YS, Choi I, Lee H. Economic Impact of Donating a Kidney on Living Donors: A Korean Cohort Study. Am J Kidney Dis 2021; 79:175-184.e1. [PMID: 34419516 DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2021.07.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/13/2020] [Accepted: 07/04/2021] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE Although existing studies have reported adverse health outcomes after kidney donation, its socioeconomic impact on living donors requires further study. STUDY DESIGN A retrospective observational cohort study including a matched comparison group. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS 1,285 living kidney donors from 7 tertiary hospitals between 2003 and 2016, and a matched comparison group consisting of the same number of health screening examinees with similar baseline clinical characteristics and socioeconomic status. All participants were receiving Korean national health insurance. EXPOSURE Kidney donation as reflected in the Korean National Health Insurance System (NHIS) database. OUTCOME Changes in household economic status estimated by Korean national health insurance fees and changes in employment status reflected in the NHIS database. ANALYTICAL APPROACH The outcomes of the donor group and matched control group were compared annually using multivariable logistic regression analyses adjusted for clinical and demographic characteristics. RESULTS The median ages of the donors and matched controls were 45 and 46 years, respectively; 44.6% of both groups were male. Compared to the comparison group, living donors were at higher risk of being unemployed or losing employment during the first 2 years after donation (eg, first-year loss of employment: odds ratio (OR), 2.27 [95% CI, 1.55-3.33]); however, this association did not persist. Donors also had a significantly lower odds of improvement in economic status (OR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.47-0.71]) and a higher odds of deterioration in financial status (OR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.23-1.93]) in the first year after transplantation and subsequently. LIMITATIONS Unmeasured differences between donors and matched controls creating residual selection bias and confounding. CONCLUSIONS Living kidney donors may suffer loss of employment and poor economic status after their voluntary donation. The socioeconomic impact on these donors should be considered in conjunction with the potential long-term adverse health outcomes after donation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sehoon Park
- Department of Biomedical Science, College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Jina Park
- Department of Biostatistics, College of Medicine, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Eunjeong Kang
- Department of Internal Medicine, Ewha Womans University Seoul Hospital, College of Medicine, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Jang Wook Lee
- Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Yaerim Kim
- Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Keimyung University, Daegu, South Korea
| | - Minsu Park
- Department of Information and Statistics, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, Korea
| | - Kwangsoo Kim
- Transdisciplinary Department of Medicine & Advanced Technology, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Hyo Jeong Kim
- Division of Healthcare Technology Assessment Research, National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Miyeun Han
- Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University Hospital, Pusan, South Korea
| | - Jang-Hee Cho
- Department of Internal Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, South Korea
| | - Jung Pyo Lee
- Department of Internal Medicine, Boramae Medical Center, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Sik Lee
- Department of Internal Medicine, Chonbuk National University Hospital, Jeonju, South Korea
| | - Soo Wan Kim
- Department of Internal Medicine, Chonnam National University Hospital, Gwangju, South Korea
| | - Sang Min Park
- Department of Internal Medicine, Chonnam National University Hospital, Gwangju, South Korea
| | - Dong-Wan Chae
- Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea; Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, South Korea
| | - Ho Jun Chin
- Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea; Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, South Korea
| | - Yong Chul Kim
- Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea; Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Yon Su Kim
- Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea; Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Insun Choi
- Division of Healthcare Technology Assessment Research, National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Hajeong Lee
- Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea; Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Fu R, Sekercioglu N, Hishida M, Coyte PC. Economic Consequences of Adult Living Kidney Donation: A Systematic Review. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2021; 24:592-601. [PMID: 33840438 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.10.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/10/2020] [Revised: 07/16/2020] [Accepted: 10/03/2020] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Current guidelines mandate organ donation to be financially neutral such that it neither rewards nor exploits donors. This systematic review was conducted to assess the magnitude and type of costs incurred by adult living kidney donors and to identify those at risk of financial hardship. METHODS We searched English-language journal articles and working papers assessing direct and indirect costs incurred by donors on PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, the National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database, Research Papers in Economics, and EconLit in 2005 and thereafter. Estimates of total costs, types of costs, and characteristics of donors who incurred the financial burden were extracted. RESULTS Sixteen studies were identified involving 6158 donors. Average donor-borne costs ranged from US$900 to US$19 900 (2019 values) over the period from predonation evaluation to the end of the first postoperative year. Less than half of donors sought financial assistance and 80% had financial loss. Out-of-pocket payments for travel and health services were the most reported items where lost income accounted for the largest proportion (23.2%-83.7%) of total costs. New indirect cost items were identified to be insurance difficulty, exercise impairment, and caregiver income loss. Donors from lower-income households and those who traveled long distances reported the greatest financial hardship. CONCLUSIONS Most kidney donors are undercompensated. Our findings highlight gaps in donor compensation for predonation evaluation, long-distance donations, and lifetime insurance protection. Additional studies outside of North America are needed to gain a global prospective on how to provide for financial neutrality for kidney donors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rui Fu
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
| | - Nigar Sekercioglu
- Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Manabu Hishida
- Department of Nephrology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Ibaraki, Japan
| | - Peter C Coyte
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Challenges, Innovations, and Next Steps in Achieving Financial Neutrality for Living Donors. CURRENT TRANSPLANTATION REPORTS 2020. [DOI: 10.1007/s40472-020-00291-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
|
10
|
The need for a living donor wellness program. Curr Opin Organ Transplant 2020; 25:311-315. [PMID: 32487890 DOI: 10.1097/mot.0000000000000779] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/24/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW Living donation has a tremendous impact in bridging the gap between the shortage of organs and the growing list of transplant candidates but remains underutilized as a percentage of total transplants performed. This review focuses on obesity and social determinants of health as potential barriers to the expansion of living kidney donation. RECENT FINDINGS The growing rate of obesity and associated metabolic syndrome make many potential donors unacceptable as donor candidates because of the future risk for developing chronic health conditions, such as hypertension and diabetes. There is also increasing evidence demonstrating socioeconomic differences and racial disparities potentially limit access to living donation in certain populations. These potentially modifiable factors are not exclusive of each other and together serve as significant contributing factors to lower rates of living donation. SUMMARY Living donors make sacrifices to provide the gift of life to transplant recipients, despite the potential risks to their own health. Studies describing risk factors to living donation call attention to the overall need for more action to prioritize and promote the health and well being of living donors.
Collapse
|
11
|
Lentine KL, Mannon RB. The Advancing American Kidney Health (AAKH) Executive Order: Promise and Caveats for Expanding Access to Kidney Transplantation. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2020; 1:557-560. [PMID: 32587954 DOI: 10.34067/kid.0001172020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Krista L Lentine
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO
| | - Roslyn B Mannon
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Donation approval among obese living kidney donor candidates: The impact of metabolic syndrome. Surgery 2019; 166:940-946. [PMID: 31444005 DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2019.07.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/16/2019] [Revised: 07/02/2019] [Accepted: 07/07/2019] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The scarcity of organs available for transplantation has increased attempts to augment transplantation by utilizing obese living kidney donors. The literature has suggested that these donors have increased risks postdonation. Not surprising, the threshold for living kidney donor approval among obese persons is typically higher and the process more costly. Therefore, a screening tool to predict the likelihood of approval among obese living kidney donor candidates was created. METHODS A single-center retrospective study was performed among obese (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2) living kidney donor candidates evaluated in clinic (January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2017). Approved candidates were compared with those not approved using multivariable logistic regression, and a prediction tool was generated. RESULTS Among 389 obese living kidney donor candidates, there were no significant differences in sex or race and ethnicity by approval status. However, nonapproved candidates had a higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome. In the prediction model, glucose impairment and hypertension were most predictive of nonapproval. CONCLUSION Among obese living kidney donor candidates, several metabolic syndrome components were associated with decreased odds of approval. This tool may serve as a useful initial screening for obese living kidney donor candidates, permitting more cost-effective evaluation processes. The tool could also be used to promote expeditious interventions in the preclinical setting, including weight management programs, to improve the likelihood of donation and postdonation outcomes.
Collapse
|
13
|
McCormick F, Held PJ, Chertow GM, Peters TG, Roberts JP. Removing Disincentives to Kidney Donation: A Quantitative Analysis. J Am Soc Nephrol 2019; 30:1349-1357. [PMID: 31345987 DOI: 10.1681/asn.2019030242] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/10/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
| | - Philip J Held
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
| | - Glenn M Chertow
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
| | - Thomas G Peters
- Department of Surgery, University of Florida, Jacksonville, Florida; and
| | - John P Roberts
- Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Barnieh L, Klarenbach S, Arnold J, Cuerden M, Knoll G, Lok C, Sontrop JM, Miller M, Ramesh Prasad GV, Przech S, Garg AX. Nonreimbursed Costs Incurred by Living Kidney Donors: A Case Study From Ontario, Canada. Transplantation 2019; 103:e164-e171. [PMID: 31246933 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000002685] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Living donors may incur out-of-pocket costs during the donation process. While many jurisdictions have programs to reimburse living kidney donors for expenses, few programs have been evaluated. METHODS The Program for Reimbursing Expenses of Living Organ Donors was launched in the province of Ontario, Canada in 2008 and reimburses travel, parking, accommodation, meals, and loss of income; each category has a limit and the maximum total reimbursement is $5500 CAD. We conducted a case study to compare donors' incurred costs (out-of-pocket and lost income) with amounts reimbursed by Program for Reimbursing Expenses of Living Organ Donors. Donors with complete or partial cost data from a large prospective cohort study were linked to Ontario's reimbursement program to determine the gap between incurred and reimbursed costs (n = 159). RESULTS The mean gap between costs incurred and costs reimbursed to the donors was $1313 CAD for out-of-pocket costs and $1802 CAD for lost income, representing a mean reimbursement gap of $3115 CAD. Nondirected donors had the highest mean loss for out-of-pocket costs ($2691 CAD) and kidney paired donors had the highest mean loss for lost income ($4084 CAD). There were no significant differences in the mean gap across exploratory subgroups. CONCLUSIONS Reimbursement programs minimize some of the financial loss for living kidney donors. Opportunities remain to remove the financial burden of living kidney donors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lianne Barnieh
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, London Health Sciences Centre, Western University, London, ON, Canada
| | - Scott Klarenbach
- Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
| | - Jennifer Arnold
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, London Health Sciences Centre, Western University, London, ON, Canada
| | - Meaghan Cuerden
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, London Health Sciences Centre, Western University, London, ON, Canada
| | - Greg Knoll
- Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Charmaine Lok
- Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Jessica M Sontrop
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, London Health Sciences Centre, Western University, London, ON, Canada
| | - Matthew Miller
- Division of Nephrology and Transplantation, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | | | - Sebastian Przech
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, London Health Sciences Centre, Western University, London, ON, Canada
| | - Amit X Garg
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, London Health Sciences Centre, Western University, London, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
LaPointe Rudow D, DeLair S, Feeley T, Florman S, Guarrera J, Kinkhabwala M, Orloff M, Teperman L, Morgan G. Longterm Impact of Living Liver Donation: A Self-Report of the Donation Experience. Liver Transpl 2019; 25:724-733. [PMID: 30589993 DOI: 10.1002/lt.25402] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/30/2018] [Accepted: 12/19/2018] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
Outcomes for adult-to-adult living liver donors (LDs) are largely based on short-term data drawn from single-center studies. The aim of this study was to determine how living liver donation (LLD) impacts self-reported quality-of-life (QOL) up to 6 years after donation in a sample of residents from New York State. New York transplant programs are state-mandated to track LDs as part of a quality assurance and patient safety effort. Donor-reported QOL within 1 year of donation and longitudinal data over a 10-year period were analyzed. Self-reported surveys include the following domains: employment, finances, health/life insurance, activities of daily living, physical/emotional health, donor experience, relationships, and LD opinions. There were 220 LDs in New York (2004-2013) who completed a survey over the 10-year period with many donors completing surveys at several points in time. Overall, longterm LDs remain as comfortable about LLD as they were during the first year after donation (95%). The majority of LDs reported feeling as well as before LLD (72%). At 1 year after donation, 60% of subjects self-reported medical problems, and 30% reported emotional issues. However, the majority reported that they would willingly donate again. In conclusion, LDs remain satisfied with their decision to donate over time. A minority of LDs report longterm medical and emotional issues. The conclusions provide information for educational interventions to improve informed choice to those considering donation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dianne LaPointe Rudow
- Zweig Family Center for Living Donation, Recanati/Miller Transplantation Institute, Department of Health Evidence and Policy, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY
| | | | | | - Sander Florman
- Zweig Family Center for Living Donation, Recanati/Miller Transplantation Institute, Department of Health Evidence and Policy, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY
| | | | | | - Mark Orloff
- University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY.,Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, NY
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
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
|
17
|
Larson DB, Wiseman JF, Vock DM, Berglund DM, Roman AM, Ibrahim HN, Matas AJ. Financial burden associated with time to return to work after living kidney donation. Am J Transplant 2019; 19:204-207. [PMID: 29799662 DOI: 10.1111/ajt.14949] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2018] [Revised: 04/13/2018] [Accepted: 05/06/2018] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
Many living kidney donors undertake a significant financial burden in order to donate. We studied the association between time to return to work and reported financial burden. Kidney donors who donated from 2/2005 through 12/2015 (n = 1012) were surveyed 6 months after donation and asked about occupation, time to return to work, and financial burden (on a 10-point Likert scale). Of 856 donors working for pay, 629 (73%) responded. After adjusting for donor characteristics, increased length of time to return to work was a significant predictor of financial burden (P < .001). It is notable that those in manual/skilled trade occupations, compared with all other occupations, experienced greater financial burden for each week away from work (P = .003). Older age at donation and nondirected (vs directed) donation were associated with significantly decreased financial burden. These observations provide additional information to better inform donor candidates, and further emphasize the need to develop policies so that living kidney donation can be financially neutral.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - David M Vock
- Division of Biostatistics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
| | | | - Ashley M Roman
- Surgical Clinical Trials Office, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
| | - Hassan N Ibrahim
- Division of Renal Diseases and Hypertension, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Arthur J Matas
- Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Opinions of Health Care Personnel Regarding Disincentives and Incentives for Living Kidney Donation at a Single Center. Transplant Proc 2018; 50:3053-3058. [PMID: 30577165 DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2018.06.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/01/2018] [Accepted: 06/19/2018] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Transplant societies continue to actively concentrate on increasing rates of living kidney donation (LKD) to bridge the gap between individuals awaiting transplantation and the number of kidneys available. A widely discussed strategy to increase living donation rates is the provision of incentives and removal of disincentives. Though opinions of the public regarding this strategy have been studied, the opinions of health care providers, including younger professionals, are less clear. We studied the opinions of medical students and other health care providers on strategies to increase LKD to determine if opinions were different among those < 25 or ≥ 25 years of age. METHODS A simple cross-sectional survey was conducted at an academic medical center. Participants included medical students and employees in Internal Medicine, General Surgery, and the Organ Transplantation Center. Pearson's χ2 and Fisher's exact test were conducted on the responses regarding disincentives and incentives to determine whether opinions differed based on age. RESULTS Six hundred and twenty-four participants completed the survey. There was no statistical difference in opinions between groups on reimbursing transportation costs, loss of wages, or childcare costs, but those aged ≥ 25 were more agreeable with covering food/lodging costs compared to those < 25 (96.5% vs 90.7%, P = .009). Respondents < 25 years old were more willing to donate a kidney for a financial incentive (P = .0002) accepting a median amount of $25,000. CONCLUSIONS Health care personnel broadly support removing financial disincentives for living kidney donation, and those ≥ 25 were more in favor of covering food/lodging costs compared to those < 25. Those < 25 years old were more likely to accept financial incentives towards donating their kidney compared to those ≥ 25 years.
Collapse
|
19
|
Ruck JM, Van Pilsum Rasmussen SE, Henderson ML, Massie AB, Segev DL. Interviews of living kidney donors to assess donation-related concerns and information-gathering practices. BMC Nephrol 2018; 19:130. [PMID: 29884126 PMCID: PMC5994029 DOI: 10.1186/s12882-018-0935-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/12/2017] [Accepted: 05/29/2018] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Efforts are underway to improve living kidney donor (LKD) education, but current LKD concerns and information-gathering preferences have not been ascertained to inform evidence-based resource development. As a result, prior studies have found that donors desire information that is not included in current informed consent and/or educational materials. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with 50 LKDs who donated at our center to assess (1) concerns about donation that they either had personally before or after donation or heard from family members or friends, (2) information that they had desired before donation, and (3) where they sought information about donation. We used thematic analysis of verbatim interview transcriptions to identify donation-related concerns. We compared the demographic characteristics of participants reporting specific concerns using Fisher’s exact test. Results We identified 19 unique concerns that participants had or heard about living kidney donation. 20% of participants reported having had no pre-donation concerns; 38% reported no post-donation concerns. The most common concern pre-donation was future kidney failure (22%), post-donation was the recovery process (24%), and from family was endangering their family unit (16%). 44% of participants reported being less concerned than family. 26% of participants wished they had had additional information prior to donating, including practical advice for recovery (10%) and information about specific complications (14%). Caucasian participants were more likely to hear at least one concern from family (76% vs. 33%, p = 0.02). The most commonly consulted educational resources were health care providers (100%) and websites (79% of donors since 2000). 26% of participants had had contact with other donors; an additional 20% desired contact with other LKDs. Conclusions Potential donors not only have personal donation-related concerns but frequently hear donation-related concerns from family members and friends. Current gaps in donor education include an absence of practical, peer-to-peer advice about donation from other prior donors and materials directed and potential donors’ family members and friends. These findings can inform the development of new educational practices and resources targeted not only at LKDs but at their social networks.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jessica M Ruck
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 720 Rutland Ave, Ross 34, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
| | - Sarah E Van Pilsum Rasmussen
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 720 Rutland Ave, Ross 34, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA
| | - Macey L Henderson
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 720 Rutland Ave, Ross 34, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA
| | - Allan B Massie
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 720 Rutland Ave, Ross 34, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.,Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, 720 Rutland Ave, Ross 34, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA
| | - Dorry L Segev
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 720 Rutland Ave, Ross 34, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.,Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, 720 Rutland Ave, Ross 34, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Rodrigue JR, Schold JD, Morrissey P, Whiting J, Vella J, Kayler LK, Katz D, Jones J, Kaplan B, Fleishman A, Pavlakis M, Mandelbrot DA. Mood, body image, fear of kidney failure, life satisfaction, and decisional stability following living kidney donation: Findings from the KDOC study. Am J Transplant 2018; 18:1397-1407. [PMID: 29206349 PMCID: PMC5988866 DOI: 10.1111/ajt.14618] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/11/2017] [Revised: 11/02/2017] [Accepted: 11/29/2017] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
Prior studies demonstrate that most living kidney donors (LKDs) report no adverse psychosocial outcomes; however, changes in psychosocial functioning at the individual donor level have not been routinely captured. We studied psychosocial outcomes predonation and at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months postdonation in 193 LKDs and 20 healthy controls (HCs). There was minimal to no mood disturbance, body image concerns, fear of kidney failure, or life dissatisfaction, indicating no incremental changes in these outcomes over time and no significant differences between LKDs and HCs. The incidence of any new-onset adverse outcomes postdonation was as follows: mood disturbance (16%), fear of kidney failure (21%), body image concerns (13%), and life dissatisfaction (10%). Multivariable analyses demonstrated that LKDs with more mood disturbance symptoms, higher anxiety about future kidney health, low body image, and low life satisfaction prior to surgery were at highest risk of these same outcomes postdonation. It is important to note that some LKDs showed improvement in psychosocial functioning from pre- to postdonation. Findings support the balanced presentation of psychosocial risks to potential donors as well as the development of a donor registry to capture psychosocial outcomes beyond the mandatory 2-year follow-up period in the United States.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- JR Rodrigue
- The Transplant Institute, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA,Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - JD Schold
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - P Morrissey
- Transplant Center, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI
| | - J Whiting
- Maine Transplant Center, Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME
| | - J Vella
- Maine Transplant Center, Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME
| | - LK Kayler
- Montefiore Einstein Center for Transplantation, Bronx, NY,Regional Center of Excellence for Transplantation & Kidney Care, Erie County Medical Center, University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY
| | - D Katz
- Organ Transplantation Program, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA
| | - J Jones
- Organ Transplantation Program, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA
| | - B Kaplan
- Department of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ,School for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ
| | - A Fleishman
- The Transplant Institute, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA
| | - M Pavlakis
- The Transplant Institute, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA,Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - DA Mandelbrot
- Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
| | | |
Collapse
|
21
|
Live Donor Kidney Transplantation: Altruism Alone Is Not Always Enough! Transplantation 2018; 102:1211-1212. [PMID: 29757909 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000002223] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|
22
|
Schold JD, Poggio ED, Augustine JJ. Gathering Clues to Explain the Stagnation in Living Donor Kidney Transplantation in the United States. Am J Kidney Dis 2018; 71:608-610. [PMID: 29685212 DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2018.01.038] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/09/2018] [Accepted: 01/14/2018] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Jesse D Schold
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Center for Populations Health Research, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
| | - Emilio D Poggio
- Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - Joshua J Augustine
- Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Louis Stokes Veterans Administration Hospital, Cleveland, OH
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Ruck JM, Holscher CM, Purnell TS, Massie AB, Henderson ML, Segev DL. Factors associated with perceived donation-related financial burden among living kidney donors. Am J Transplant 2018; 18:715-719. [PMID: 29068176 PMCID: PMC5863761 DOI: 10.1111/ajt.14548] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/07/2017] [Revised: 09/18/2017] [Accepted: 10/12/2017] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
The perception of living kidney donation-related financial burden affects willingness to donate and the experience of donation, yet no existing tools identify donors who are at higher risk of perceived financial burden. We sought to identify characteristics that predicted higher risk of perceived financial burden. We surveyed 51 living kidney donors (LKDs) who donated from 01/2015 to 3/2016 about socioeconomic characteristics, predonation cost concerns, and perceived financial burden. We tested associations between both self-reported and ZIP code-level characteristics and perceived burden using Fisher's exact test and bivariate modified Poisson regression. Donors who perceived donation-related financial burden were less likely to have an income above their ZIP code median (14% vs. 72%, P = .006); however, they were more likely than donors who did not perceive burden to rent their home (57% vs. 16%, P = .03), have an income <$60 000 (86% vs. 20%, P = .002), or have had predonation cost concerns (43% vs. 7%, P = .03). Perceived financial burden was 3.6-fold as likely among those with predonation cost concerns and 10.6-fold as likely for those with incomes <$60 000. Collecting socioeconomic characteristics and asking about donation-related cost concerns prior to donation might allow transplant centers to target financial support interventions toward potential donors at higher risk of perceiving donation-related financial burden.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jessica M. Ruck
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | | | - Tanjala S. Purnell
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD,Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD,Department of Health, Behavior, and Society, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD
| | - Allan B. Massie
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD,Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD
| | - Macey L. Henderson
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD,Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD
| | - Dorry L. Segev
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD,Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD,Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Rodrigue JR, Fleishman A, Carroll M, Evenson AR, Pavlakis M, Mandelbrot DA, Baliga P, Howard DH, Schold JD. The Living Donor Lost Wages Trial: Study Rationale and Protocol. CURRENT TRANSPLANTATION REPORTS 2018; 5:45-54. [PMID: 29805957 PMCID: PMC5967265] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/08/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW This paper describes the background, rationale, and design of an NIH-funded, single-center study to test the impact of offering reimbursement for donor lost wages incurred during the post-nephrectomy recovery period on the live donor kidney transplant (LDKT) rate in newly evaluated kidney transplant candidates, to examine whether offering reimbursement for donor lost wages reduces racial disparity in LDKT rates, and to determine whether higher reimbursement amounts lead to higher LDKT rates. RECENT FINDINGS LDKT is the optimal treatment for renal failure. However, living kidney donation has declined in the past decade, particularly among men, younger adults, blacks, and low-income adults. There is evidence that donation-related costs may deter both transplant candidates and potential donors from considering LDKT. Lost wages is a major source of financial loss for some living donors and, unlike travel and lodging expenses, is not reimbursed by financial assistance programs. SUMMARY The study addresses the transplant community's call to reduce the financial burden of living donation and examine its impact on LDKT rates. Findings have the potential to influence policy, clinical practice, LDKT access, and income-related and racial disparities in LDKT and living donation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James R. Rodrigue
- The Transplant Institute, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - Aaron Fleishman
- The Transplant Institute, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA
| | - Michaela Carroll
- The Transplant Institute, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA
| | - Amy R. Evenson
- The Transplant Institute, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - Martha Pavlakis
- The Transplant Institute, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | | | - Prabhakar Baliga
- Department of Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC
| | - David H. Howard
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Emory University, Atlanta, GA
| | - Jesse D. Schold
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Dorflinger LM, Kulkarni S, Thiessen C, Klarman S, Fraenkel L. Assessing Living Donor Priorities Through Nominal Group Technique. Prog Transplant 2018; 28:29-35. [PMID: 29243533 PMCID: PMC5735019 DOI: 10.1177/1526924817746682] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
The need for kidneys for transplantation continues to far surpass the number of donors. Although studies have shown that most people are aware of and support the idea of living donation, it remains unclear what motivates individuals who are aware, knowledgeable, and in support of donation to actually donate, or conversely, what deters them from donating. Utilizing nominal group technique, 30 individuals participated in 4 groups in which they brainstormed factors that would impact willingness to be a living donor and voted on which factors they deemed most important. Responses were analyzed and categorized into themes. Factors that influence the donation decision, from most to least important as rated by participants, were altruism, relationship to recipient, knowledge, personal risk/impact, convenience/access, cost, support, personal benefit, and religion. Participants reported a significant lack of information about donation as well as lack of knowledge about where and how to obtain information that would motivate them to donate or help make the decision to donate. Findings suggest that public campaign efforts seeking to increase rates of living donation should appeal to altruism and increase knowledge about the impact (or lack thereof) of donation on lifestyle factors and future health, and transplant programs should aim to maximize convenience and minimize donor burden. Future research should examine whether tailoring public campaigns to address factors perceived as most salient by potential donors reduces the significant gap in supply of and demand for kidneys.
Collapse
|
26
|
|
27
|
Thiessen C, Jaji Z, Joyce M, Zimbrean P, Reese P, Gordon EJ, Kulkarni S. Opting out: a single-centre pilot study assessing the reasons for and the psychosocial impact of withdrawing from living kidney donor evaluation. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS 2017; 43:756-761. [PMID: 28258071 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2016-103512] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2016] [Revised: 11/15/2016] [Accepted: 02/03/2017] [Indexed: 06/06/2023]
Abstract
Understanding why individuals opt out of living donation is crucial to enhancing protections for all living donors and to identify modifiable barriers to donation. We developed an ethical approach to conducting research on individuals who opted out of living kidney donation and applied it in a small-scale qualitative study at one US transplant centre. The seven study participants (64% response rate) had varied reasons for opting out, the most prominent of which was concern about the financial burden from lost wages during the postoperative period. Several reported feeling alone during their decision-making process. Although no participants used an alibi, a centre-provided statement of non-eligibility to donate, all believed that centres should offer alibis to help preserve donor autonomy. Given the complexity of participants' decisions and the emotions they experienced before and after deciding not to donate, we suggest approaches for independent living donor advocates to support this population. This study demonstrates that research on individuals who opt out of donation is feasible and yields valuable insight into methods to improve the evaluation experience for potential living donors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carrie Thiessen
- Department of Surgery, Section of Organ Transplantation and Immunology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
| | - Zainab Jaji
- Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
| | - Michael Joyce
- Department of Surgery, Section of Organ Transplantation and Immunology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
| | - Paula Zimbrean
- Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
| | - Peter Reese
- Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Elisa J Gordon
- Department of Surgery, Comprehensive Transplant Center, Center for Healthcare Studies, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Sanjay Kulkarni
- Department of Surgery, Section of Organ Transplantation and Immunology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Living kidney donors have donation-related out-of-pocket costs (direct costs) and/or ongoing daily expenses while losing income (indirect costs). Yet there is little information about how much of a subjective burden these constitute for the donors. METHODS From December 2003 through December 2014, we surveyed donors 6 months postdonation to determine their financial burden related to donation (on a scale of 1 to 10) and what resources were used to cover expenses. RESULTS Of 1136 surveyed, 796 (70%) responded. Among respondents, mean age at donation was 43.6 ± 10.6 years, 64% were women, 96% were white, and 53% were related by blood to their recipient. Overall, 26% scored their financial burden as 5 or higher; 8% scored it as 8 or higher. Increased expenses were associated with a higher reported burden; however, significant burden was reported by some with no out-of-pocket expenses (presumably due to lost wages and continuing expenses). The burden was scored as 5 or higher by 27% of those employed outside the home (n = 660), 15% homemakers, 13% retirees, 40% students; 28% unemployed; and 26% whose occupation was unknown. Over half (51%) of those receiving a local or (means-tested) national grant still reported moderate to severe burden. Besides grants, donors used a variety of sources to help offset expenses: dipped into savings, borrowed from friends or family, took out a loan, and/or had a fundraiser. Those with the highest burden reported using the most additional sources. CONCLUSIONS Donors should not have to incur costs or a financial burden to donate; the transplant community should strive to make donation financially neutral.
Collapse
|
29
|
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
|
30
|
|
31
|
Matas AJ, Hays RE, Ibrahim HN. Long-Term Non-End-Stage Renal Disease Risks After Living Kidney Donation. Am J Transplant 2017; 17:893-900. [PMID: 27529688 DOI: 10.1111/ajt.14011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2016] [Revised: 06/29/2016] [Accepted: 08/04/2016] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
Despite generally positive outcomes and high rates of satisfaction, living kidney donors are at risk for both medical and psychosocial problems. In this review, the authors summarize non-end-stage renal disease (ESRD) risks for donors and describe limitations to the data. We review the evidence of medical risks (e.g. increased cardiovascular disease and mortality, preeclampsia) and psychosocial risks (e.g. mood disturbance, financial burden). We then discuss the evidence of differential risks among subsets and the impact of postdonation events (e.g. development of diabetes). Collectively, available evidence indicates the following. (1) Recognizing the importance of non-ESRD risks has been overshadowed by analyses of the reported risk of ESRD. This imbalance should be remedied. (2) There is little quantification of the true contribution of donation to medical and psychosocial outcomes. (3) Most studies, to date, have been retrospective, with limited sample sizes and diversity and with less-than-ideal controls for comparison of outcomes. (4) Many postdonation events (diabetes and hypertension) can now be reasonably predicted, and their association with adverse outcomes can be quantified. (5) Mechanisms and systems need to be implemented to evaluate and care for donors who develop medical and/or psychosocial problems. (6) Costs to donors are a significant burden, and making donation financially neutral should be a priority.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A J Matas
- Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
| | - R E Hays
- Transplant Clinic, Division of Transplantation, University of Wisconsin Hospital & Clinics, Madison, WI
| | - H N Ibrahim
- Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
DiMartini A, Dew MA, Liu Q, Simpson MA, Ladner DP, Smith AR, Zee J, Abbey S, Gillespie BW, Weinrieb R, Mandell MS, Fisher RA, Emond JC, Freise CE, Sherker AH, Butt Z. Social and Financial Outcomes of Living Liver Donation: A Prospective Investigation Within the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study 2 (A2ALL-2). Am J Transplant 2017; 17:1081-1096. [PMID: 27647626 PMCID: PMC5359081 DOI: 10.1111/ajt.14055] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2016] [Revised: 08/04/2016] [Accepted: 09/07/2016] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
Because results from single-center (mostly kidney) donor studies demonstrate interpersonal relationship and financial strains for some donors, we conducted a liver donor study involving nine centers within the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study 2 (A2ALL-2) consortium. Among other initiatives, A2ALL-2 examined the nature of these outcomes following donation. Using validated measures, donors were prospectively surveyed before donation and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 mo after donation. Repeated-measures regression models were used to examine social relationship and financial outcomes over time and to identify relevant predictors. Of 297 eligible donors, 271 (91%) consented and were interviewed at least once. Relationship changes were positive overall across postdonation time points, with nearly one-third reporting improved donor family and spousal or partner relationships and >50% reporting improved recipient relationships. The majority of donors, however, reported cumulative out-of-pocket medical and nonmedical expenses, which were judged burdensome by 44% of donors. Lower income predicted burdensome donation costs. Those who anticipated financial concerns and who held nonprofessional positions before donation were more likely to experience adverse financial outcomes. These data support the need for initiatives to reduce financial burden.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A DiMartini
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh PA, USA,Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh PA, USA
| | - MA Dew
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh PA, USA,Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh PA, USA,Department of Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh PA, USA,Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh PA, USA
| | - Q Liu
- Arbor Research Collaborative for Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - MA Simpson
- Lahey Hospital and Medical Center Clinical Research and Education, Burlington, MA, USA,Department of Transplantation, Burlington, MA, USA
| | - DP Ladner
- Northwestern University Transplant Outcomes Research Collaborative (NUTORC), Chicago, IL, USA,Comprehensive Transplant Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - AR Smith
- Arbor Research Collaborative for Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA,Departments of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - J Zee
- Arbor Research Collaborative for Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - S Abbey
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto and University Health Network, Toronto ON, CA
| | - BW Gillespie
- Departments of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - R Weinrieb
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - MS Mandell
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of Colorado, Denver CO, USA
| | - RA Fisher
- Department of Transplant Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA (current affiliation, Beth Israel Deaconess Department of Surgery, Harvard University)
| | - JC Emond
- Department of Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - CE Freise
- Department of Surgery, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - AH Sherker
- Liver Diseases Research Branch, Division of Digestive Diseases and Nutrition, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Z Butt
- Northwestern University Transplant Outcomes Research Collaborative (NUTORC), Chicago, IL, USA,Comprehensive Transplant Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA,Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago IL, USA,Institute for Public Health and Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
LaPointe Rudow D, Cohen D. Practical Approaches to Mitigating Economic Barriers to Living Kidney Donation for Patients and Programs. CURRENT TRANSPLANTATION REPORTS 2017. [DOI: 10.1007/s40472-017-0135-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|
34
|
Rodrigue JR, Fleishman A. Health Insurance Trends in United States Living Kidney Donors (2004 to 2015). Am J Transplant 2016; 16:3504-3511. [PMID: 27088263 PMCID: PMC5069113 DOI: 10.1111/ajt.13827] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/19/2016] [Revised: 03/25/2016] [Accepted: 04/11/2016] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
Some transplant programs consider the lack of health insurance as a contraindication to living kidney donation. Still, prior studies have shown that many adults are uninsured at time of donation. We extend the study of donor health insurance status over a longer time period and examine associations between insurance status and relevant sociodemographic and health characteristics. We queried the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network registry for all living kidney donors (LKDs) between July 2004 and July 2015. Of the 53 724 LKDs with known health insurance status, 8306 (16%) were uninsured at the time of donation. Younger (18 to 34 years old), male, minority, unemployed, less educated, unmarried LKDs and those who were smokers and normotensive were more likely to not have health insurance at the time of donation. Compared to those with no health risk factors (i.e. obesity, smoking, hypertension, estimated glomerular filtration rate <60, proteinuria) (14%), LKDs with 1 (18%) or ≥2 (21%) health risk factors at the time of donation were more likely to be uninsured (p < 0.0001). Among those with ≥2 health risk factors, blacks (28%) and Hispanics (27%) had higher likelihood of being uninsured compared to whites (19%; p < 0.001). Study findings underscore the importance of providing health insurance benefits to all previous and future LKDs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James R. Rodrigue
- Center for Transplant Outcomes and Quality Improvement, Transplant Institute, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA,Departments of Surgery and Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Aaron Fleishman
- Center for Transplant Outcomes and Quality Improvement, Transplant Institute, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Hays RE, Thomas AE, Mathias E, Mezrich J, Mandelbrot DA. Barriers to the use of a federal travel grant by living kidney donors. Clin Transplant 2016; 31. [PMID: 27888522 DOI: 10.1111/ctr.12876] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/15/2016] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
Living organ donation involves significant out-of-pocket costs, which burden donor candidates and may be an obstacle to donation. There is a single US grant (the National Living Donor Assistance Center-NLDAC) to cover live donor travel costs. Although there may be center-specific variability in grant utilization, prospective donors-and their intended recipients-must also meet eligibility criteria. In fact, the NLDAC grant is used by <10% of US live donors annually. We studied 154 consecutive kidney donor clinic evaluations (November 1, 2014-August 30, 2015) to determine eligibility and usage patterns during the evaluation process. Of these, 63 (41%) were local, had travel benefits, or declined. Of the remaining 91 prospective donors who might have benefited from grant support, only 29 (32%) obtained the grant. The other 62 (68%) did not meet eligibility screening. The major reason prospective donors were ineligible was that the recipient's household income was outside the required means test (ie, >300% of the federal poverty level) (n=51; 82%). The remaining exclusions (n=11; 18%) included being a nondirected donor, not meeting residency requirements, and "other." Expanding NLDAC eligibility criteria-by broadening the recipient means test or by taking steps to eliminate it from the NLDAC charter-would reduce financial burdens associated with live donation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca E Hays
- Transplant Clinic, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, Madison, WI, USA
| | | | - Erin Mathias
- University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Joshua Mezrich
- Surgery, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin Hospital, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Didier A Mandelbrot
- Medical Director of Kidney and Pancreas Transplantation, University of Wisconsin Hospital, Madison, WI, USA
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Rodrigue JR, Schold JD, Mandelbrot DA, Taber DJ, Phan V, Baliga PK. Concern for Lost Income Following Donation Deters Some Patients From Talking to Potential Living Donors. Prog Transplant 2016; 26:292-298. [PMID: 27495327 DOI: 10.1177/1526924816661332] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
CONTEXT Some living kidney donors report lost income during recovery from surgery. Little is known about whether concern for living donor's lost income affects the decision to undergo donation evaluation and the willingness of transplant candidates to discuss living kidney donation (LKD) with others. OBJECTIVE To examine whether transplant patients were told by potential donors about lost income concerns and whether patients chose not to discuss LKD with others due to lost income concerns. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS Kidney transplant patients (185 wait-listed candidates, 171 deceased donor recipients, and 100 live donor recipients) at 2 centers completed a questionnaire to assess whether concern about donor's lost income was a consideration in discussion about LKD with others. RESULTS One-third (32%) were told by a family member/friend that they were willing to donate but were concerned about potential lost income. The majority of those who expressed financial concern (64%) did not initiate donation evaluation. Many patients (42%) chose not to discuss living donation with a family member/friend due to concern about the impact of lost income on the donor. In the multivariable model, lower annual household income was the only statistically significant predictor of both having a potential donor expressing lost income concern and choosing not to talk to someone because of lost income concern. CONCLUSION Findings from the current study underscore how concern about income loss for living donors may affect decision-making by both transplant candidates and potential donors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James R Rodrigue
- 1 Center for Transplant Outcomes and Quality Improvement, The Transplant Institute, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.,2 Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Jesse D Schold
- 3 Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | | | - David J Taber
- 5 Department of Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.,6 Department of Pharmacy, Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center, Charleston, SC, USA
| | - Van Phan
- 5 Department of Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
| | - Prabhakar K Baliga
- 5 Department of Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Hays R, Rodrigue JR, Cohen D, Danovitch G, Matas A, Schold J, LaPointe Rudow D. Financial Neutrality for Living Organ Donors: Reasoning, Rationale, Definitions, and Implementation Strategies. Am J Transplant 2016; 16:1973-81. [PMID: 27037542 DOI: 10.1111/ajt.13813] [Citation(s) in RCA: 53] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/09/2015] [Revised: 03/13/2016] [Accepted: 03/19/2016] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
In the United States, live organ donation can be a costly and burdensome undertaking for donors. While most donation-related medical expenses are covered, many donors still face lost wages, travel expenses, incidentals, and potential for future insurability problems. Despite widespread consensus that live donors (LD) should not be responsible for the costs associated with donation, little has changed to alleviate financial burdens for LDs in the last decade. To achieve this goal, the transplant community must actively pursue strategies and policies to eliminate unreimbursed out-of-pocket costs to LDs. Costs should be more appropriately distributed across all stakeholders; this will also make live donation possible for people who, in the current system, cannot afford to proceed. We propose the goal of LD "financial neutrality," offer an operational definition to include the coverage/reimbursement of all medical, travel, and lodging costs, along with lost wages, related to the act of donating an organ, and guidance for consideration of medical care coverage, and wage and other expense reimbursement. The intent of this report is to provide a foundation to inform discussion within the transplant community and to advance initiatives for policy and resource allocation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R Hays
- Transplant Center, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, Madison, WI
| | - J R Rodrigue
- Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - D Cohen
- Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - G Danovitch
- Department of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
| | - A Matas
- Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota Medical Center-Fairview, Minneapolis, MN
| | - J Schold
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - D LaPointe Rudow
- Recanati Miller Transplantation Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Formica RN, Newell KA. What Is the Price of Altruism? Am J Transplant 2016; 16:741-2. [PMID: 26845497 DOI: 10.1111/ajt.13590] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2015] [Revised: 10/20/2015] [Accepted: 10/24/2015] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- R N Formica
- Department of Medicine/Section of Nephrology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT
| | - K A Newell
- Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Rodrigue JR, Schold JD, Morrissey P, Whiting J, Vella J, Kayler LK, Katz D, Jones J, Kaplan B, Fleishman A, Pavlakis M, Mandelbrot DA. Direct and Indirect Costs Following Living Kidney Donation: Findings From the KDOC Study. Am J Transplant 2016; 16:869-76. [PMID: 26845630 DOI: 10.1111/ajt.13591] [Citation(s) in RCA: 56] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/18/2015] [Revised: 09/11/2015] [Accepted: 09/23/2015] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
Some living kidney donors (LKDs) incur costs associated with donation, although these costs are not well characterized in the United States. We collected cost data in the 12 mo following donation from 182 LKDs participating in the multicenter prospective Kidney Donor Outcomes Cohort (KDOC) Study. Most LKDs (n = 167, 92%) had one direct cost or more following donation, including ground transportation (86%), health care (41%), meals (53%), medications (36%), lodging (23%), and air transportation (12%). LKDs missed 33 072 total work hours, 40% of which were unpaid and led to $302 175 in lost wages (mean $1660). Caregivers lost $68 655 in wages (mean $377). Although some donors received financial assistance, 89% had a net financial loss in the 12-mo period, with one-third (33%) reporting a loss exceeding $2500. Financial burden was higher for those with greater travel distance to the transplant center (Spearman's ρ = 0.26, p < 0.001), lower household income (Spearman's ρ = -0.25, p < 0.001), and more unpaid work hours missed (Spearman's ρ = 0.52, p < 0.001). Achieving financial neutrality for LKDs must be an immediate priority for the transplant community, governmental agencies, insurance companies, nonprofit organizations, and society at large.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J R Rodrigue
- Center for Transplant Outcomes and Quality Improvement, The Transplant Institute, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA.,Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - J D Schold
- Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - P Morrissey
- Transplant Center, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI
| | - J Whiting
- Maine Transplant Center, Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME
| | - J Vella
- Maine Transplant Center, Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME
| | - L K Kayler
- Montefiore Einstein Center for Transplantation, Bronx, NY.,Regional Center of Excellence for Transplantation and Kidney Care, Erie County Medical Center, University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY
| | - D Katz
- Organ Transplantation Program, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA
| | - J Jones
- Organ Transplantation Program, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA
| | - B Kaplan
- Department of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.,School for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ
| | - A Fleishman
- Center for Transplant Outcomes and Quality Improvement, The Transplant Institute, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA
| | - M Pavlakis
- Center for Transplant Outcomes and Quality Improvement, The Transplant Institute, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA.,Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - D A Mandelbrot
- Center for Transplant Outcomes and Quality Improvement, The Transplant Institute, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA.,Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
| | | |
Collapse
|