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

Living Kidney Donation: A Narrative Review of Mid- and Long-term Psychosocial Outcomes

Living kidney donors make a significant contribution to alleviating the organ shortage. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of mid- and long-term (≥12 mo) living donor psychosocial outcomes and highlight areas that have been understudied and should be immediately addressed in both research and clinical practice. We conducted a narrative review by searching 3 databases. A total of 206 articles were included. Living donors can be divided into those who donate to an emotionally or genetically related person, the so-called directed donors, or to an emotionally or genetically unrelated recipient, the so-called nondirected donors. The most commonly investigated (bio)psychosocial outcome after living donation was health-related quality of life. Other generic (bio)psychological outcomes include specific aspects of mental health such as depression, and fatigue and pain. Social outcomes include financial and employment burdens and problems with insurance. Donation-specific psychosocial outcomes include regret, satisfaction, feelings of abandonment and unmet needs, and benefits of living kidney donation. The experience of living donation is complex and multifaceted, reflected in the co-occurrence of both benefits and burden after donation. Noticeably, no interventions have been developed to improve mid- or long-term psychosocial outcomes among living donors. We highlight areas for methodological improvement and identified 3 areas requiring immediate attention from the transplant community in both research and clinical care: (1) recognizing and providing care for the minority of donors who have poorer long-term psychosocial outcomes after donation, (2) minimizing donation-related financial burden, and (3) studying interventions to minimize long-term psychosocial problems.

Center Variation and Risk Factors for Failure to Complete 6 Month Postdonation Follow-up Among Obese Living Kidney Donors

BACKGROUND

Living kidney donors in the United States who were obese at donation are at increased risk of end-stage renal disease and may benefit from intensive postdonation follow-up. However, they are less likely to have complete follow-up data. Center variation and risk factors for incomplete follow-up are unknown.

METHODS

Adult living kidney donors with obesity (body mass index, ≥30 kg/m) at donation reported to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients from January 2005 to July 2015 were included (n = 13 831). Donor characteristics were compared by recorded serum creatinine at 6 months postdonation, and multilevel logistic regression models were used to estimate odds of 6-month creatinine.

RESULTS

After adjustment, older age, female sex, and donation after implementation of new center follow-up requirements were associated with higher odds of 6-month creatinine, with lower odds for obese donors with a history of smoking, biologically related donors, and at centers with higher total living donor volume. 23% of variation in recorded 6-month serum creatinine among obese donors was attributed to center (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.232, P < 0.001). The adjusted probability of 6-month creatinine by center ranged from 10% to 91.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Tremendous variation in recorded 6-month postdonation serum creatinine exists among obese living donors, with high volume centers having the lowest probability of follow-up. Moreover, individual-level characteristics such as age, sex, and relationship to recipient were associated with recorded 6-month creatinine. Given increased risk for end-stage renal disease among obese living donors, center-level efforts targeted specifically at increasing postdonation follow-up among obese donors should be developed and implemented.

Perioperative Considerations Regarding Sex in Solid Organ Transplantation

Sex plays a role in all stages of the organ transplant process, including listing, sex/size matching of organs, complications, graft survival, and mortality. Sex-related differences in organ transplantation are likely multifactorial related to biological and social characteristics. More information is needed to determine how sex-related differences can lead to improved outcomes for future donors and recipients of solid organs. This article provides an overview on the impact of sex on various types of solid organ transplant, including kidney, pancreas, liver, lung, and heart transplants.

Practical Considerations for APOL1 Genotyping in the Living Kidney Donor Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Association between the apolipoprotein L1 gene (APOL1) and nephropathy has altered the epidemiology of chronic kidney disease. In addition, donor APOL1 genotypes play important roles in the time to allograft failure in kidneys transplanted from deceased donors and the safety of living kidney donation.

METHODS

This article reviews genetic testing for inherited kidney disease in living kidney donors to improve donor safety. APOL1 genotyping in donors with recent African ancestry is considered.

RESULTS

Based on current data, transplant physicians should discuss APOL1 genotyping with potential living kidney donors self-reporting recent African ancestry. Until results from APOL1 Long-term Kidney Transplant Outcomes Network ancillary studies are available, we present practical approaches from our experience for considering APOL1 genotyping in the living donor evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Transplant physicians should inform potential living kidney donors at risk for APOL1-associated nephropathy about the gene and possibility of genetic testing early in the donor evaluation, well before scheduling the donor nephrectomy. Transplant programs must weigh risks of performing a donor nephrectomy in those with 2 APOL1 renal risk variants (high-risk genotypes), particularly younger individuals. Our program counsels kidney donors with APOL1 high-risk genotypes in the same fashion as with risk genotypes in other nephropathy genes. Because most African American kidney donor candidates lacking hypertension, proteinuria and reduced kidney function after workup will not possess APOL1 high-risk genotypes, genetic testing is unlikely to markedly increase donor declines and may reassure donors with regard to their long-term kidney outcomes, potentially increasing the number of African American donors.

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

PURPOSE

To provide standardized guidance for transplant programs to maximize financial reimbursement related to living donor care, and to minimize financial consequences of evaluation, surgical and follow-up care to living donor candidates and donors.

RECENT FINDINGS

In 2014, the American Society for Transplantation (AST) Live Donor Community of Practice (LDCOP) "Consensus Conference on Best Practices in Live Kidney Donation" identified inconsistencies in billing practices as a barrier to living donor financial neutrality, and issued a strong recommendation that the transplant community actively pursue strategies and policies to make living donation a financially neutral act, within the framework of federal law. The LDCOP convened a multidisciplinary group of experts to review and synthesize current Medicare regulations and commercial payer practices related to billing for living donor care, and the implications for transplant programs and patients. We developed guidance for transplant program staff related to strategies to consistently and appropriately obtain reimbursement via the Medicare Cost Report by utilizing organ acquisition; coordinate available coverage for donor pretesting, evaluation, hospitalization, follow-up care, and complications; coordinate charges in kidney paired donation; and maximize coverage through private insurance contracting. We also offer recommendations to protect donor confidentiality in the context of billing, and to educate and prepare donor candidates and donors about any remaining gaps in coverage related to donation.

SUMMARY

Best practices in billing for living donation-related care should focus on balancing cost recovery, regulatory compliance, and minimized donor burden. Herein we offer 9 recommendations for best practice. We also offer a platform of 7 recommendations for research & advocacy efforts to better understand the climate of living donor medical costs, and to optimize billing practices that support provision of living donor transplant services to all patients who can benefit and to achieve financial neutrality for living donors.

The Change in Living Kidney Donation in Women and Men in the United States (2005-2015): A Population-Based Analysis

The factors underlying the decline in living kidney donation in the United States since 2005 must be understood to inform strategies to ensure access to this option for future patients. Population-based estimates provide a better assessment of donation activity than do trends in the number of living donor transplants. Using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and the United States Census, we determined longitudinal changes in living kidney donation between 2005 and 2015, focusing on the effect of sex and income. We used multilevel Poisson models to adjust for differences in age, race, the incidence of ESRD, and geographic factors (including population density, urbanization, and daily commuting). During the study period, the unadjusted rate of donation was 30.1 and 19.3 per million population in women and men, respectively, and the adjusted incidence of donation was 44% higher in women (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.44; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.39 to 1.49). The incidence of donation was stable in women (IRR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.07) but declined in men (IRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.83). Income was associated with longitudinal changes in donation in both sexes, yet donation was stable in the highest two population income quartiles in women but only in the highest income quartile in men. In both sexes, living related donations declined, irrespective of income. In conclusion, living donation declined in men but remained stable in women between 2005 and 2015, and income appeared to have a greater effect on living donation in men.

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.

Patterns of primary care utilization before and after living kidney donation

BACKGROUND

Annual visits with a primary care provider (PCP) are recommended for living kidney donors to monitor long-term health postdonation, yet adherence to this recommendation is unknown.

METHODS

We surveyed 1170 living donors from our center from 1970 to 2012 to ascertain frequency of PCP visits pre- and postdonation. Interviews occurred median (IQR) 6.6 (3.8-11.0) years post-transplant. We used multivariate logistic regression to examine associations between donor characteristics and PCP visit frequency.

RESULTS

Overall, only 18.6% had less-than-annual PCP follow-up postdonation. The strongest predictor of postdonation PCP visit frequency was predonation PCP visit frequency. Donors who had less-than-annual PCP visits before donation were substantially more likely to report less-than-annual PCP visits postdonation (OR=9.8 14.421.0, P<.001). Men were more likely to report less-than-annual PCP visits postdonation (adjusted OR=1.2 1.62.3, P<.01); this association was amplified in unmarried/noncohabiting men (aOR=2.4 3.96.3, P<.001). Donors without college education were also more likely to report less-than-annual PCP visits postdonation (aOR=1.3 1.82.5 , P=.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The importance of annual PCP visits should be emphasized to all living donors, especially those with less education, men (particularly single men), and donors who did not see their PCP annually before donation.

Providing Coverage for the Unique Lifelong Health Care Needs of Living Kidney Donors Within the Framework of Financial Neutrality

Organ donation should neither enrich donors nor impose financial burdens on them. We described the scope of health care required for all living kidney donors, reflecting contemporary understanding of long-term donor health outcomes; proposed an approach to identify donor health conditions that should be covered within the framework of financial neutrality; and proposed strategies to pay for this care. Despite the Affordable Care Act in the United States, donors continue to have inadequate coverage for important health conditions that are donation related or that may compromise postdonation kidney function. Amendment of Medicare regulations is needed to clarify that surveillance and treatment of conditions that may compromise postdonation kidney function following donor nephrectomy will be covered without expense to the donor. In other countries lacking health insurance for all residents, sufficient data exist to allow the creation of a compensation fund or donor insurance policies to ensure appropriate care. Providing coverage for donation-related sequelae as well as care to preserve postdonation kidney function ensures protection against the financial burdens of health care encountered by donors throughout their lives. Providing coverage for this care should thus be cost-effective, even without considering the health care cost savings that occur for living donor transplant recipients.

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.