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.

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.

Liver Paired Exchange: Programmatic Hopes and Fears

The dearth of deceased liver donors has created a supply demand gap, necessitating creation of living donor liver transplantation. However, living donor liver transplantation has relied on directed donation, whereby many potential directed donors are rejected based on ABO blood group incompatibility, hepatic size incompatibility, or the need for biliary or arterial reconstruction during transplant surgery. Much like kidney paired exchange, liver paired exchange (LPE) circumvents these incompatibility issues by relying on anonymous, nondirected, or bridge donors that are better anatomical or histological matches for recipients. Although Asia has taken the lead in LPE, the process has only recently been adopted in North America, with the first successful surgery done in the United States in 2019. Our review article sheds light on the process of LPE and the success of LPE in the United States thus far and, additionally, highlights the several logistical and ethical challenges that must be considered as transplant centers adopt and scale up LPE across the United States to address the increased demand for liver allografts.

Potential association between public medical insurance, waitlist mortality, and utilization of living donor liver transplantation: An analysis of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients

BACKGROUND

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) and subsequent Medicaid expansion has increased utilization of public health insurance. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) increases access to transplant and is associated with improved survival but consistently represents < 5% of LT in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN

National registry data were analyzed to evaluate the impact of insurance payor on waitlist mortality and LDLT rates at LDLT centers since implementation of the ACA.

RESULTS

Public insurance [Medicare RR 1.18 (1.13-1.22) P < .001, Medicaid RR 1.22 (1.18-1.27) P < .001], Latino ethnicity (P < .001), and lower education level (P = .02) were associated with increased waitlist mortality at LDLT centers. LDLT recipients were more likely to have private insurance (70.4% vs. 59.4% DDLT, P < .001), be Caucasian (92.1% vs. 83% DDLT, P < .001), and have post-secondary education (66.8% vs. 54.1% DDLT, P < .001). Despite 78% of LDLT centers being located in states with Medicaid expansion, there was no change in LDLT utilization among recipients with Medicaid (P = .196) or Medicare (P = .273).

CONCLUSION

Despite Medicaid expansion, registry data suggests that patients with public medical insurance may experience higher waitlist mortality and underutilize LDLT at centers offering LDLT. It is possible that Medicaid expansion has not increased access to LDLT.