Predonation Direct and Indirect Costs Incurred by Adults Who Donated a Kidney: Findings From the KDOC Study

Use of Federal Reimbursement for Living Donor Costs by Racial and Ethnic Minorities: Implications for Disparities in Access to Living Donor Transplantation

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.

Living Donor Candidates' Self-reported Health and Health Perceptions and Completion of Donor Evaluation: A Cohort Study

Rationale & Objective

Given the organ shortage in the United States, increasing living donation is vital to improving access to kidney transplantation, but many donor candidates do not complete the donor evaluation. Our objective was to understand potential living donors' perceived health and its association with the likelihood of completing the donor evaluation process.

Study Design

Potential donors' self-reported health was ascertained using the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) global physical and mental health and the Davies and Ware Health Perceptions surveys.

Setting & Participants

Potential living donors who expressed interest in donation at a single medical center were recruited prospectively between 2017 and 2022.

Exposure

Donors' self-reported health and health perceptions.

Outcomes

Completion of the donor evaluation.

Analytical Approach

Adjusted linear and logistic regression models were used to examine the association between self-reported health and health perceptions with outcomes.

Results

A total of 1,347 individuals were included for study; 46% (N = 613) were < 40 years of age, 71% (n = 951) were female, 22% (n = 294) were of Hispanic ethnicity, and 16% (n = 215) completed the donor evaluation. The mean PROMIS global physical health (17.0 ± 1.9) and mental health (15.5 ± 2.7) raw scores were higher among donor candidates proceeding to completion of the donor evaluation when compared with those who withdrew early in the process (16.3 ± 2.2 for physical health and 14.9 ± 3.1 for mental health). Every z-score change in the PROMIS physical health score was associated with 1.48-fold higher odds of completing the donor evaluation (95% CI, 1.19-1.85). Fully adjusted models incorporating the PROMIS scores for predicting the completion of donor evaluations had a c-statistic of 0.70. Potential donors' Davies and Wares health perceptions did not predict the likelihood of completing the donor evaluation in fully adjusted models.

Limitations

Data are derived from a single center and may not generalize to the donor evaluation process at other transplant centers.

Conclusions

Donor candidates' self-reported physical health may serve as a predictor of the likelihood of completing the donor evaluation process and a potential avenue for future interventions.

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

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

How Do Financial Obstacles Affect Decision-Making Among Potential Living Organ Donors?

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.

Evaluation and Long-Term Follow-Up of Living Kidney Donors

The evaluation of living kidney donor candidates is a complex and lengthy process. Donor candidates face geographic and socioeconomic barriers to completing donor evaluation. Inequities in access to living donations persist. With a growing demand for kidney transplants and a shortage of living donors, transplant centers are more permissive of accepting less-than-ideal donor candidates. Donors have an increased lifetime risk of kidney failure, but the absolute risk increase is small. Efforts are needed to support donor candidates to complete donor nephrectomy safely and efficiently and receive optimal follow-up care to prevent risk factors for kidney disease and detect complications early. In this article, the authors address key elements of donor kidney evaluation, including current living donation policy requirements and transplant center practices. The authors present a simplified comprehensive practical approach to help guide providers in completing donor evaluation and follow-up care with best outcomes possible.

Donor Perceptions and Preferences of Telemedicine and In-Person Visits for Living Kidney Donor Evaluation

Introduction

Living kidney donor evaluation is a lengthy and complex process requiring in-person visits. Access to transplant centers, travel costs, lost wages, and dependent care arrangements are barriers to willing donors initiating evaluation. Telemedicine can help streamline and epedite the evaluation process. We aimed to deeply understand donor experiences and preferences using hybrid telemedicine video/in-person visits to ease access to donor evaluation or counseling.

Methods

We conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with donors or donor candidates who completed their evaluation through telemedicine/in-person, or in-person only visits at a tertiary transplant center between November 27, 2019 and March 1, 2021. Enrollment continued until data saturation was reached (interviews with 20 participants) when no new information emerged from additional interviews. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.

Results

Eight themes were identified as follows: (i) reducing financial and logistical burdens (minimizing travel time and travel-related expenses), (ii) enhancing flexibility with scheduling (less time off work and child or family caregiver arrangements), (iii) importance of a walkthrough and establishing shared understanding, (iv) supporting information with technology and visual aids, (v) key role of the coordinator, (vi) preferred visit by provider role (meeting donor surgeon in-person to create rapport and engaging primary care provider in donor evaluation/follow-up), (vii) comparing modality differences in human connection, and (viii) opportunity for family and support network engagement (allowing loved ones to be involved in telemedicine visits irrespective of geographic locations and pandemic restrictions).

Conclusion

Telemedicine/in-person hybrid model can make donor evaluation more accessible and convenient. Our findings help inform about determinants that influence the adoption of telemedicine to initiate donor evaluation to motivate willing donors. In addition, our results call for policy and legislation that support telemedicine services for living donor kidney transplantation across states.

Living Donor Decision-Making and the Complex Interplay of Finances and Other Motivators, Barriers, and Facilitators

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.

Changing landscape of living kidney donation and the role of telemedicine

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.

Telemedicine services for living kidney donation: A US survey of multidisciplinary providers

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.

Economic Impact of Donating a Kidney on Living Donors: A Korean Cohort Study

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.

Economic Consequences of Adult Living Kidney Donation: A Systematic Review

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.

The need for a living donor wellness program

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.

Donation approval among obese living kidney donor candidates: The impact of metabolic syndrome

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.

Nonreimbursed Costs Incurred by Living Kidney Donors: A Case Study From Ontario, Canada

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.

Longterm Impact of Living Liver Donation: A Self-Report of the Donation Experience

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.

Risks of Living Kidney Donation: Current State of Knowledge on Outcomes Important to Donors

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.

Financial burden associated with time to return to work after living kidney donation

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.

Opinions of Health Care Personnel Regarding Disincentives and Incentives for Living Kidney Donation at a Single Center

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.

Interviews of living kidney donors to assess donation-related concerns and information-gathering practices

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.

Mood, body image, fear of kidney failure, life satisfaction, and decisional stability following living kidney donation: Findings from the KDOC study

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.

Factors associated with perceived donation-related financial burden among living kidney donors

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.

The Living Donor Lost Wages Trial: Study Rationale and Protocol

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.

Assessing Living Donor Priorities Through Nominal Group Technique

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.

Opting out: a single-centre pilot study assessing the reasons for and the psychosocial impact of withdrawing from living kidney donor evaluation

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.

Financial Burden Borne by Laparoscopic Living Kidney Donors

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.

KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors

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.

Long-Term Non-End-Stage Renal Disease Risks After Living Kidney Donation

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.

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)

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.

Health Insurance Trends in United States Living Kidney Donors (2004 to 2015)

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.

Barriers to the use of a federal travel grant by living kidney donors

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.

Concern for Lost Income Following Donation Deters Some Patients From Talking to Potential Living Donors

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.

Financial Neutrality for Living Organ Donors: Reasoning, Rationale, Definitions, and Implementation Strategies

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.

Direct and Indirect Costs Following Living Kidney Donation: Findings From the KDOC Study

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.