Association of a Liver Allocation Policy Change With Domestic Travel for Liver Transplantation
- PMID: 39866679
- PMCID: PMC11759321
- DOI: 10.1097/TXD.0000000000001749
Association of a Liver Allocation Policy Change With Domestic Travel for Liver Transplantation
Abstract
Background: In 2020, liver allocation policy in the United States was changed to allow for broader organ sharing, which was hypothesized to reduce patient incentives to travel for transplant. Our objective was to describe patterns of travel for domestic liver transplant pre- and post-acuity circle (AC) implementation.
Methods: Incident adult liver transplant listings between August 16, 2016, and February 3, 2020 (pre-AC) or June 13, 2020, and December 3, 2023 (post-AC) were obtained from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. We used previously defined geographic catchment areas to classify patients as (1) no travel, (2) travel to a neighboring region, and (3) travel beyond a neighboring region. We used multinomial logistic regression to identify characteristics associated with travel and cause-specific hazards modeling to estimate the association between travel and time to deceased donor transplant, stratified by model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score and AC era.
Results: Among 83 033 liver candidates, 76% were listed in their home region. Black race, lower educational attainment, increased neighborhood social deprivation, and Medicaid were significantly associated with decreased odds of traveling beyond a neighboring region. After AC, traveling beyond a neighboring region was associated with an increased hazard of transplant for patients with a MELD score <15 (cause-specific hazard ratio [csHR]: 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.40), MELD score 15-24 (csHR: 1.19; 95% CI, 1.07-1.31), and MELD score 25-34 (csHR: 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32).
Conclusions: Travel frequency, geographic patterns of travel, and characteristics associated with travel were largely unchanged after AC. Changes to allocation policy alone may not equalize patient means or desire to travel for transplant care.
Copyright © 2025 The Author(s). Transplantation Direct. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Disparities in the Effects of Acuity Circle-based Liver Allocation on Waitlist and Transplant Practice Between Centers.Transplant Direct. 2022 Sep 26;8(10):e1356. doi: 10.1097/TXD.0000000000001356. eCollection 2022 Oct. Transplant Direct. 2022. PMID: 36176726 Free PMC article.
-
The Effect of New Acuity Circle Policy on Simultaneous Liver and Kidney Transplantation in the United States.J Clin Exp Hepatol. 2024 Mar-Apr;14(2):101296. doi: 10.1016/j.jceh.2023.10.007. Epub 2023 Oct 21. J Clin Exp Hepatol. 2024. PMID: 38544764 Free PMC article.
-
Cost Analysis of Liver Acquisition Fees Before and After Acuity Circle Policy Implementation.JAMA Surg. 2021 Nov 1;156(11):1051-1057. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2021.4406. JAMA Surg. 2021. PMID: 34495291 Free PMC article.
-
Evolution of liver transplant organ allocation policy: Current limitations and future directions.World J Hepatol. 2021 Aug 27;13(8):830-839. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v13.i8.830. World J Hepatol. 2021. PMID: 34552690 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Development of the allocation system for deceased donor liver transplantation.Clin Med Res. 2005 May;3(2):87-92. doi: 10.3121/cmr.3.2.87. Clin Med Res. 2005. PMID: 16012126 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Burton AM, Goldberg DS. Center-level and region-level variations in liver transplantation practices following acuity circles policy change. Am J Transplant. 2022;22:2668–2674. - PubMed
-
- Schwartz A, Schiano T, Kim-Schluger L, et al. . Geographic disparity: the dilemma of lower socioeconomic status, multiple listing, and death on the liver transplant waiting list. Clin Transplant. 2014;28:1075–1079. - PubMed
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources