Literature DB >> 26779694

The Impact of Redistricting Proposals on Health Care Expenditures for Liver Transplant Candidates and Recipients.

S E Gentry1,2,3, E K H Chow1, N Dzebisashvili4,5, M A Schnitzler4, K L Lentine4, C E Wickliffe1, E Shteyn3, J Pyke3, A Israni3,6,7, B Kasiske3,7, D L Segev1,3, D A Axelrod5.   

Abstract

Redistricting, which means sharing organs in novel districts developed through mathematical optimization, has been proposed to reduce pervasive geographic disparities in access to liver transplantation. The economic impact of redistricting was evaluated with two distinct data sources, Medicare claims and the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC). We estimated total Medicare payments under (i) the current allocation system (Share 35), (ii) full regional sharing, (iii) an eight-district plan, and (iv) a four-district plan for a simulated population of patients listed for liver transplant over 5 years, using the liver simulated allocation model. The model predicted 5-year transplant volumes (Share 35, 29,267; regional sharing, 29,005; eight districts, 29,034; four districts, 28,265) and a reduction in overall mortality, including listed and posttransplant patients, of up to 676 lives. Compared with current allocation, the eight-district plan was estimated to reduce payments for pretransplant care ($1638 million to $1506 million, p < 0.001), transplant episode ($5607 million to $5569 million, p < 0.03) and posttransplant care ($479 million to $488 million, p < 0.001). The eight-district plan was estimated to increase per-patient transportation costs for organs ($8988 to $11,874 per patient, p < 0.001) and UHC estimated hospital costs ($4699 per case). In summary, redistricting appears to be potentially cost saving for the health care system but will increase the cost of performing liver transplants for some transplant centers. © Copyright 2015 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Sharing (UNOS); United Network for Organ; business; economics; ethics and public policy; health services and outcomes research; hepatology; liver disease; liver transplantation; management; organ allocation; organ procurement and allocation

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26779694     DOI: 10.1111/ajt.13569

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


  7 in total

Review 1.  Are geographic differences in transplantation inherently wrong?

Authors:  Keren Ladin; Douglas W Hanto
Journal:  Curr Opin Organ Transplant       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 2.640

2.  An Initial Investigation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and Real-Time Organ Status Measurement for Transporting Human Organs.

Authors:  Joseph R Scalea; Stephen Restaino; Matthew Scassero; Gil Blankenship; Stephen T Bartlett; Norman Wereley
Journal:  IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med       Date:  2018-11-06       Impact factor: 3.316

3.  Can Behavioral Research Improve Transplant Decision-Making? A Mock Offer Study on the Role of Kidney Procurement Biopsies.

Authors:  Darren Stewart; Brian Shepard; John Rosendale; Harrison McGehee; Isaac Hall; Gaurav Gupta; Kunam Reddy; Bertram Kasiske; Kenneth Andreoni; David Klassen
Journal:  Kidney360       Date:  2020-01-06

4.  Waitlist Outcomes of Liver Transplant Candidates Who Were Reprioritized Under Share 35.

Authors:  E K H Chow; A B Massie; X Luo; C E Wickliffe; S E Gentry; A M Cameron; D L Segev
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2016-08-24       Impact factor: 8.086

5.  Effect of broader geographic sharing of donor lungs on lung transplant waitlist outcomes.

Authors:  Joshua J Mooney; Jay Bhattacharya; Gundeep S Dhillon
Journal:  J Heart Lung Transplant       Date:  2018-09-14       Impact factor: 10.247

6.  Fair is fair: We must re-allocate livers for transplant.

Authors:  Brendan Parent; Arthur L Caplan
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2017-04-05       Impact factor: 2.652

7.  Dynamic impact of liver allocation policy change on donor utilization.

Authors:  Ethan Chan; April J Logan; Jeffrey M Sneddon; Navdeep Singh; Guy N Brock; William K Washburn; Austin D Schenk
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2022-03-09       Impact factor: 9.369

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.