Literature DB >> 14974942

Payment for living donor (vendor) kidneys: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Arthur J Matas1, Mark Schnitzler.   

Abstract

The supply of kidneys does not meet the demand. As a consequence, the waiting time for a cadaver kidney continues to lengthen, and there is renewed debate about payment for living donors. To facilitate this debate, we studied what amount of payment would be cost-effective for society, i.e. what costs would be saved (if any) by removing a patient from the waiting list using a paid (living unrelated: LURD) donor-vendor. A Markov model was developed to calculate the expected average cost and outcome benefits of increasing the organ supply and reducing waiting times by adding paid LURD organs to the available pool. We found that a LURD transplant saved $94,579 (US dollars, 2002), and 3.5 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were gained. Adding the value of QALYs, a LURD transplant saved $269 319, assuming society values additional QALYs from transplantation at the rate paid per QALY while on dialysis. At a minimum, a vendor program would save society >$90,000 per transplant and provides QALYs for the ESRD population. Thus, society could break even while paying $90,000/kidney vendor.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14974942     DOI: 10.1046/j.1600-6143.2003.00290.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Transplant        ISSN: 1600-6135            Impact factor:   8.086


  32 in total

Review 1.  Organ trafficking: scope and ethical dilemma.

Authors:  Eytan Mor; Hagai Boas
Journal:  Curr Diab Rep       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 4.810

2.  Compensated living kidney donation: a plea for pragmatism.

Authors:  Faisal Omar; Gunnar Tufveson; Stellan Welin
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2009-01-29

3.  Should we pay donors to increase the supply of organs for transplantation? No.

Authors:  Jeremy Chapman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-06-14

4.  Should we pay donors to increase the supply of organs for transplantation? Yes.

Authors:  Arthur J Matas
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-06-14

Review 5.  A review of the costs and cost effectiveness of interventions in chronic kidney disease: implications for policy.

Authors:  Joseph Menzin; Lisa M Lines; Daniel E Weiner; Peter J Neumann; Christine Nichols; Lauren Rodriguez; Irene Agodoa; Tracy Mayne
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Shortened length of stay improves financial outcomes in living donor kidney transplantation.

Authors:  Manuel Villa; Eric Siskind; Emil Sameyah; Asha Alex; Mark Blum; Richard Tyrell; Melissa Fana; Marni Mishler; Andrew Godwin; Michael Kuncewitch; Mohini Alexander; Ezra Israel; Madhu Bhaskaran; Kellie Calderon; Kenar D Jhaveri; Mala Sachdeva; Alessandro Bellucci; Joseph Mattana; Steven Fishbane; Gene Coppa; Ernesto Molmenti
Journal:  Int J Angiol       Date:  2013-06

7.  Lifetime cost-effectiveness of calcineurin inhibitor withdrawal after de novo renal transplantation.

Authors:  Stephanie R Earnshaw; Christopher N Graham; William D Irish; Reiko Sato; Mark A Schnitzler
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2008-06-18       Impact factor: 10.121

8.  The Changing Financial Landscape of Renal Transplant Practice: A National Cohort Analysis.

Authors:  D A Axelrod; M A Schnitzler; H Xiao; A S Naik; D L Segev; V R Dharnidharka; D C Brennan; K L Lentine
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2016-10-04       Impact factor: 8.086

Review 9.  The bioethics and utility of selling kidneys for renal transplantation.

Authors:  E Berman; J M Lipschutz; R D Bloom; J H Lipschutz
Journal:  Transplant Proc       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 1.066

10.  Association of lower costs of pulsatile machine perfusion in renal transplantation from expanded criteria donors.

Authors:  P M Buchanan; K L Lentine; T E Burroughs; M A Schnitzler; P R Salvalaggio
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 8.086

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.