Rational rationing or discrimination: balancing equity and efficiency considerations in kidney allocation

Ethics of allocation of donor organs

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There is no widely accepted single ethical principle for the fair allocation of scarce donor organs for transplantation. Although most allocation systems use combinations of allocation principles, there is a particular tension between 'prioritizing the worst-off' and 'maximizing total benefits'. It is often suggested that empirical research on public preferences should help solve the dilemma between equity and efficiency in allocation policy-making.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review shows that the evidence on public preferences for allocation principles is limited, and that the normative role of public preferences in donor organ allocation policy making is unclear. The review seeks to clarify the ethical dilemma to the transplant community, and draws attention to recent attempts at balancing and rank-ordering of allocation principles.

SUMMARY

This review suggests that policy makers should make explicit the relative weights attributed to equity and efficiency considerations in allocation policies, and monitor the effects of policy changes on important ethics outcomes, including equitable access among patient groups. Also, it draws attention to wider justice issues associated not with the distribution of donor organs among patients on waiting lists, but with barriers in referral for transplant evaluation and disparities among patient groups in access to waiting lists.

Balancing Equity and Efficiency in Kidney Allocation: An Overview

Organs for transplantation are a scarce resource. Markedly, the transplant community's primary challenge is the stark disparity between the number of patients awaiting deceased donor organ transplants and the rate at which organs become available. However, the allocation of a limited number of organs poses another constant challenge: maintaining an equilibrium between renal transplant utility and equity, that is, striking a balance between the utilitarian argument of medical efficiency and the principle of equity. In this comprehensive overview, the authors delve into the challenge of maintaining an acceptable balance between equity and efficiency and elaborate on some of the factors that might inform a decisionmaker's evaluation of the extent to which a given allocation scheme is efficient or equitable.

Kidney Organ Allocation System: How to Be Fair

Transplantation is a life-saving medical intervention that unfortunately is constrained by scarcity of available organs. An ideal system for allocating organs should seek to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It also must be fair and not disadvantage certain populations. However, policies aimed at reducing disparities also must be balanced with considerations of utility (graft outcomes), cost, efficiency, and any adverse effects on organ utilization. Here, we discuss the ethical challenges of creating a fair and equitable organ allocation system, focusing on the principles governing deceased donor kidney transplant waitlists around the world. The kidney organ allocation systems in the United States, Australia, and Hong Kong are used as illustrations.

Donor-Recipient Matching in Kidney Transplant: We're Not There Yet

BACKGROUND

Strategic organ allocation is expected to prolong patient and graft survival after transplant. This study explored differences in graft survival when kidneys are allocated based on strategic donor-recipient (D-R) pairing vs with the existing Kidney Allocation System (KAS).

METHODS

Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients from 2000 to 2014, we used a multivariable Cox model to assess the hazard ratios (HRs) for death or graft failure among 3 hypothetical donor kidneys transplanted into 3 hypothetical recipients, relative to an ideally matched D-R pair. Median predicted survival for each of the 9 possible D-R pairing combinations was determined, and outcomes for strategic D-R pairing were compared with those obtained using the KAS for allocation.

RESULTS

A total of 31,607 patients (29.7%) died or developed graft loss over the study period. Strategic allocation of kidneys resulted in HRs for graft loss of 1.74 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-2.14), 1.82 (95% CI, 1.46-2.26), and 1.74 (95% CI 1.38-2.19) for recipients 1, 2 and 3 respectively, whereas by following the KAS, HRs were 1.93 (95%, CI 1.63-2.28), 2.06 (95% CI, 1.74-2.44), and 1.93 (95% CI, 1.58-2.37); corresponding to 3.84, 11.39, and 7.40 months longer predicted patient or graft survival for recipients 1, 2 and 3 with strategic D-R pairing compared with the KAS.

CONCLUSIONS

Allocation of kidneys by strategic D-R pairing may improve graft survival relative to allocation using the KAS.

Cost-utility analysis in chronic kidney disease patients undergoing kidney transplant; what pays? A systematic review

Background

Health systems are under pressure to deliver more effective care without expansion of resources. This is particularly pertinent to diseases like chronic kidney disease (CKD) that are exacting substantial financial burden to many health systems. The aim of this study is to systematically review the Cost Utility Analysis (CUA) evidence generated across interventions for CKD patients undergoing kidney transplant (KT).

Methods

A systemic review of CUA on the interventions for CKD patients undergoing KT was carried out using a search of the MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO and NHS-EED. The CHEERS checklist was used as a set of good practice criteria in determining the reporting quality of the economic evaluation. Quality of the data used to inform model parameters was determined using the modified hierarchies of data sources.

Results

A total of 330 articles identified, 16 met the inclusion criteria. Almost all (n = 15) the studies were from high income countries. Out of the 24 characteristics assessed in the CHEERS checklist, more than 80% of the selected studies reported 14 of the characteristics. Reporting of the CUA were characterized by lack of transparency of model assumptions, narrow economic perspective and incomplete assessment of the effect of uncertainty in the model parameters on the results. The data used for the economic model were satisfactory quality. The authors of 13 studies reported the intervention as cost saving and improving quality of life, whereas three studies were cost increasing and improving quality of life. In addition to the baseline analysis, sensitivity analysis was performed in all the evaluations except one. Transplanting certain high-risk donor kidneys (high risk of HIV and Hepatitis-C infected kidneys, HLA mismatched kidneys, high Kidney Donor Profile Index) and a payment to living donors, were found to be cost-effective.

Conclusions

The quality of economic evaluations reviewed in this paper were assessed to be satisfactory. Implementation of these strategies will significantly impact current systems of KT and require a systematic implementation plan and coordinated efforts from relevant stakeholders.

Public attitudes toward contemporary issues in liver allocation

Allocation of scarce livers for transplantation seeks to balance competing ethical principles of autonomy, utility, and justice. Given the history and ongoing dependence of transplantation on public support for funding and organs, understanding and incorporating public attitudes into allocation decisions seems appropriate. In the context of the current controversy around liver allocation, we sought to determine public preferences about issues relevant to the debate. We performed multiple surveys of attitudes around donation and evaluated these using conjoint analysis and clarifying follow-up questions. We found little public support that allocation decisions should be based solely on risk of waiting-list mortality. Strong public sentiment supported maximizing outcomes after transplantation, prioritizing US citizens or residents, keeping organs local, and considering cost in allocation decisions. We then present a methodology for incorporating these preferences into the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (or MELD) priority score. Taken together, these findings suggest that current allocation schemes do not accurately reflect public preferences and suggest a framework to better align allocation with the values of the public.

Measuring and monitoring equity in access to deceased donor kidney transplantation

The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network monitors progress toward strategic goals such as increasing the number of transplants and improving waitlisted patient, living donor, and transplant recipient outcomes. However, a methodology for assessing system performance in providing equity in access to transplants was lacking. We present a novel approach for quantifying the degree of disparity in access to deceased donor kidney transplants among waitlisted patients and determine which factors are most associated with disparities. A Poisson rate regression model was built for each of 29 quarterly, period-prevalent cohorts (January 1, 2010-March 31, 2017; 5 years pre-kidney allocation system [KAS], 2 years post-KAS) of active kidney waiting list registrations. Inequity was quantified as the outlier-robust standard deviation (SD_w ) of predicted transplant rates (log scale) among registrations, after "discounting" for intentional, policy-induced disparities (eg, pediatric priority) by holding such factors constant. The overall SD_w declined by 40% after KAS implementation, suggesting substantially increased equity. Risk-adjusted, factor-specific disparities were measured with the SD_w after holding all other factors constant. Disparities associated with calculated panel-reactive antibodies decreased sharply. Donor service area was the factor most associated with access disparities post-KAS. This methodology will help the transplant community evaluate tradeoffs between equity and utility-centric goals when considering new policies and help monitor equity in access as policies change.

Evolving Trends in Racial Disparities for Peri-Operative Outcomes with the New Kidney Allocation System (KAS) Implementation

INTRODUCTION

To improve kidney transplant allocation equitability, a new Kidney Allocation System (KAS) was implemented December 4, 2014. The purpose of this study was to determine if the impact of KAS on peri-operative outcomes differed by recipient race/ethnicity.

METHODS

This was a time series analysis using data aggregated in monthly intervals from October 2012 through September 2015 using the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC). This includes national data aggregated at the center level of all US kidney transplant centers that participate in the UHC (416 centers). Segmented regression with interaction terms was used to determine the impact of KAS on outcomes and differences by race/ethnicity.

RESULTS

A total of 28,809 deceased donor kidney transplants were included with 25 months of pre-KAS data and 10 months of post-KAS data. After KAS implementation, the estimated transplant rate per month decreased significantly for Caucasians by 17.6 cases per month (p = 0.0001), and increased significantly for AAs by 37.8 (p = 0.0001), Hispanics by 16.3 (p = 0.0001), and other races by 8.2 cases per month (p = 0.0001). Delayed graft function, 7- and 14-day readmissions significantly increased after KAS, which did not differ by race. Hispanics saw a 7.7% decrease in ICU admissions after KAS, which differed as compared to other racial/ethnic cohorts (p = 0.0026). Costs of kidney transplantation increased significantly after KAS in all groups except Hispanics. Mortality, length of stay, in-hospital complications, and 30-day readmissions were not significantly impacted by KAS, also not differing by race/ethnicity.

CONCLUSION

KAS had substantial impact on transplant rates by race/ethnicity. KAS also led to increased costs, readmissions, and delayed graft function (DGF) across all racial/ethnic groups. The impact of KAS on ICU cases solely within Hispanics requires further investigation into potential etiologies.

Explaining the Persistence of Health Disparities: Social Stratification and the Efficiency-Equity Trade-off in the Kidney Transplantation System

Why do health disparities persist when their previous mechanisms are eliminated? Fundamental-cause theorists argue that social position primarily improves health through two metamechanisms: better access to health information and technology. I argue that the general, cumulative, and embodied consequences of social stratification can produce another metamechanism: an efficiency-equity trade-off. A case in point is kidney transplantation, where the mechanisms previously thought to link race to outcomes--ability to pay and certain factors in the kidney allocation system--have been greatly reduced, yet large disparities persist. I show that these current disparities are rooted in factors that directly influence posttransplant success, placing efficiency and racial/ethnic equity at cross-purposes.

Ageism as a Risk Factor for Chronic Disease

Ageism is one of the most socially condoned and institutionalized forms of prejudice in the United States. Older adults are discriminated against in employment, health care, and other domains. Exposure to unfavorable stereotypes adversely affects the attitudes, cognitions, and behavior of older adults. Recurrent experiences with negative stereotypes combined with discrimination may make ageism a chronic stressor in the lives of older adults. The way stress influences physical health is gaining increasing support. The weathering hypothesis (Geronimus, A. T. (1992) The weathering hypothesis and the health of African-American women and infants: Evidence and speculations. Ethnicity and Disease, 2, 207-221) posits that the cumulative effects of chronic objective and subjective stressors and high-effort coping cause deterioration of the body, premature aging, and associated health problems such as chronic diseases. Researchers have found empirical support for the weathering hypothesis as well as its theorized contribution to racial and ethnic health disparities. Although ageism is not experienced over the entire life course, as racism typically is, repeated exposure to chronic stressors associated with age stereotypes and discrimination may increase the risk of chronic disease, mortality, and other adverse health outcomes. I conclude with implications for practice in the helping professions and recommendations for future research. Ageism warrants greater recognition, social condemnation, and scientific study as a possible social determinant of chronic disease.

Pediatric heart allocation and transplantation in Eurotransplant

Pediatric heart allocation in Eurotransplant (ET) has evolved over the past decades to better serve patients and improve utilization. Pediatric heart transplants (HT) account for 6% of the annual transplant volume in ET. Death rates on the pediatric heart transplant waiting list have decreased over the years, from 25% in 1997 to 18% in 2011. Within the first year after listing, 32% of all infants (<12 months), 20% of all children aged 1-10 years, and 15% of all children aged 11-15 years died without having received a heart transplant. Survival after transplantation improved over the years, and in almost a decade, the 1-year survival went from 83% to 89%, and the 3-year rates increased from 81% to 85%. Improved medical management of heart failure patients and the availability of mechanical support for children have significantly improved the prospects for children on the heart transplant waiting list.

Ethical considerations surrounding survival benefit-based liver allocation

The disparity between the demand for and supply of donor livers has continued to grow over the last 2 decades, and this has placed greater weight on the need for efficient and effective liver allocation. Although the use of extended criteria donors has shown great potential, it remains unregulated. A survival benefit-based model was recently proposed to answer calls to increase efficiency and reduce futile transplants. However, it was previously determined that the current allocation system was not in need of modification and that instead geographic disparities should be addressed. In contrast, we believe that there is a significant need to replace the current allocation system and complement efforts to improve donor liver distribution. We illustrate this need first by identifying major ethical concerns shaping liver allocation and then by using these concerns to identify strengths and shortcomings of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease/Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease system and a survival benefit-based model. The latter model is a promising means of improving liver allocation: it incorporates a greater number of ethical principles, uses a sophisticated statistical model to increase efficiency and reduce waste, minimizes bias, and parallels developments in the allocation of other organs. However, it remains limited in its posttransplant predictive accuracy and may raise potential issues regarding informed consent. In addition, the proposed model fails to include quality-of-life concerns and prioritize younger patients. We feel that it is time to take the next steps toward better liver allocation not only through reductions in geographic disparities but also through the adoption of a model better equipped to balance the many ethical concerns shaping organ allocation. Thus, we support the development of a similar model with suggested amendments.

Tragic choices and moral compromise: the ethics of allocating kidneys for transplantation

CONTEXT

For almost a decade, the Kidney Transplantation Committee of the United Network for Organ Sharing has been striving to revise its approach to allocating kidneys from deceased donors for transplantation. Two fundamental values, equality and efficiency, are central to distributing this scarce resource. The prevailing approach gives primacy to equality in the temporal form of first-come, first-served, whereas the motivation for a new approach is to redeem efficiency by increasing the length of survival of transplanted kidneys and their recipients. But decision making about a better way of allocating kidneys flounders because it is constrained by the amorphous notion of "balancing" values.

METHODS

This article develops a more fitting, productive approach to resolving the conflict between equality and efficiency by embedding the notion of compromise in the analysis of a tragic choice provided by Guido Calabresi and Philip Bobbitt. For Calabresi and Bobbitt, the goals of public policy with respect to tragic choices are to limit tragedy and to deal with the irreducible minimum of tragedy in the least offensive way. Satisfying the value of efficiency limits tragedy, and satisfying the value of equality deals with the irreducible minimum of tragedy in the least offensive way. But both values cannot be completely satisfied simultaneously. Compromise is occasioned when not all the several obligations that exist in a situation can be met and when neglecting some obligations entirely in order to fulfill others entirely is improper. Compromise is amalgamated with the notion of a tragic choice and then used to assess proposals for revising the allocation of kidneys considered by the Kidney Transplantation Committee.

FINDINGS

Compromise takes two forms in allocating kidneys: it occurs within particular approaches to allocating kidneys because neither equality nor efficiency can be fully satisfied, and it occurs over the course of sequential approaches to allocating kidneys that cycle between preferring equality and efficiency. Ross and colleagues' Equal Opportunity Supplemented by Fair Innings proposal for allocating kidneys best exemplifies the rationality of compromise as a way of achieving the goals of making a tragic choice.

CONCLUSIONS

The attempt to design a policy for allocating kidneys from deceased donors for transplantation by balancing the values of equality and efficiency is misguided and unhelpful. Instead policymaking should both incorporate compromise into discrete approaches to allocating kidneys and extend compromise over sequential approaches to allocating kidneys.

Who should be prioritized for renal transplantation?: Analysis of key stakeholder preferences using discrete choice experiments

Background

Policies for allocating deceased donor kidneys have recently shifted from allocation based on Human Leucocyte Antigen (HLA) tissue matching in the UK and USA. Newer allocation algorithms incorporate waiting time as a primary factor, and in the UK, young adults are also favoured. However, there is little contemporary UK research on the views of stakeholders in the transplant process to inform future allocation policy. This research project aimed to address this issue.

Methods

Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) questionnaires were used to establish priorities for kidney transplantation among different stakeholder groups in the UK. Questionnaires were targeted at patients, carers, donors / relatives of deceased donors, and healthcare professionals. Attributes considered included: waiting time; donor-recipient HLA match; whether a recipient had dependents; diseases affecting life expectancy; and diseases affecting quality of life.

Results

Responses were obtained from 908 patients (including 98 ethnic minorities); 41 carers; 48 donors / relatives of deceased donors; and 113 healthcare professionals. The patient group demonstrated statistically different preferences for every attribute (i.e. significantly different from zero) so implying that changes in given attributes affected preferences, except when prioritizing those with no rather than moderate diseases affecting quality of life. The attributes valued highly related to waiting time, tissue match, prioritizing those with dependents, and prioritizing those with moderate rather than severe diseases affecting life expectancy. Some preferences differed between healthcare professionals and patients, and ethnic minority and non-ethnic minority patients. Only non-ethnic minority patients and healthcare professionals clearly prioritized those with better tissue matches.

Conclusions

Our econometric results are broadly supportive of the 2006 shift in UK transplant policy which emphasized prioritizing the young and long waiters. However, our findings suggest the need for a further review in the light of observed differences in preferences amongst ethnic minorities, and also because those with dependents may be a further priority.