Experiences obtaining insurance after live kidney donation

Understanding the Healthcare Needs of Living Kidney Donors Using the Picker Principles of Patient-centered Care: A Scoping Review

Living kidney donors (LKDs) undertake a complex and multifaceted journey when pursuing donation and have several unmet healthcare needs. A comprehensive understanding of these needs across their entire donation trajectory can help develop a patient-centered care model. We conducted a scoping review to synthesize empirical evidence, published since 2000, on LKDs' experiences with healthcare from when they decided to pursue donation to postdonation care, and what they reported as their care needs. We categorized them according to the 8 Picker principles of patient-centered care. Of the 4514 articles screened, 47 were included. Ample literature highlighted the need for (1) holistic, adaptable, and linguistically appropriate approaches to education and information; (2) systematic, consistent, and proactive coordination and integration of care; and (3) self-management and preparation to optimize perioperative physical comfort. Some literature highlighted the need for (4) better continuity and transition of care postdonation. Two key unmet needs were the lack of (5) a holistic psychosocial evaluation predonation and predischarge to provide emotional support and alleviation of fear and anxiety; and (6) access to specialty and psychosocial services postdonation especially when adverse events occurred. Limited literature explored the principles of (7) respect for patients' values, preferences, and expressed needs; and (8) involvement of family and friends as caregivers. We summarize several unmet healthcare needs of LKDs throughout their donation journey and highlight knowledge gaps. Addressing them can improve their well-being and experiences, and potentially address inequities in living kidney donation and increase living donor kidney transplantation.

Living Liver Donation Does not Significantly Affect Long-Term Life, Disability, or Medical Insurability

INTRODUCTION

The growing practice of living liver donation requires comprehensive understanding of the financial implications for living liver donors. While obtaining and maintaining insurance is important to financial health, little is known about the impact of liver donation on future insurability.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the donors' experiences with insurance following donation and identify the insurance provider-driven factors that contribute to donor insurability.

DESIGN

A two center cohort of living donors with donation between January 2000 and December 2018 (N = 442) were surveyed about postdonation insurance experiences. To understand insurance provider practices towards liver donors, life (n = 11) and disability (n = 4) insurance underwriters were asked to provide policy quotes for a standardized living liver donor profile.

RESULTS

Responses (N = 101) were received by August 2020 (response rate = 22.9%). Living liver donors reported owning life (58%), disability (35%), and medical (87%) insurance at rates comparable to the general population with low proportions reporting difficulty obtaining these insurance types (9%, 9%, 4%, respectively). Post-donation life insurance ownership was associated with post-donation employment (P = 0.01). Underwriter responses indicate life and disability insurability were adversely affected up to 12 months following donation.

CONCLUSIONS

Living liver donors did not have difficulty maintaining insurance in the long-term but should be counseled to purchase insurance prior to surgery as short-term insurability may be affected. Perception of difficulty obtaining insurance following donation remains of significant concern among living donors. Further collaboration between the transplant community and insurance companies is warranted.

Managing the Costs of Routine Follow-up Care After Living Kidney Donation: a Review and Survey of Contemporary Experience, Practices, and Challenges

Purpose of Review

While living organ donor follow-up is mandated for 2 years in the USA, formal guidance on recovering associated costs of follow-up care is lacking. In this review, we discuss current billing practices of transplant programs for living kidney donor follow-up, and propose future directions for managing follow-up costs and supporting cost neutrality in donor care.

Recent Findings

Living donors may incur costs and financial risks in the donation process, including travel, lost time from work, and dependent care. In addition, adherence to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) mandate for US transplant programs to submit 6-, 12-, and 24-month postdonation follow-up data to the national registry may incur out-of-pocket medical costs for donors. Notably, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has explicitly disallowed transplant programs to bill routine, mandated follow-up costs to the organ acquisition cost center or to the recipient’s Medicare insurance. We conducted a survey of transplant staff in the USA (distributed October 22, 2020–March 15, 2021), which identified that the mechanisms for recovering or covering the costs of mandated routine postdonation follow-up at responding programs commonly include billing recipients’ private insurance (40%), while 41% bill recipients’ Medicare insurance. Many programs reported utilizing institutional allowancing (up to 50%), and some programs billed the organ acquisition cost center (25%). A small percentage (11%) reported billing donors or donors’ insurance.

Summary

To maintain a high level of adherence to living donor follow-up without financially burdening donors, up-to-date resources are needed on handling routine donor follow-up costs in ways that are policy-compliant and effective for donors and programs. Development of a government-supported national living donor follow-up registry like the Living Donor Collective may provide solutions for aspects of postdonation follow-up, but requires transplant program commitment to register donors and donor candidates as well as donor engagement with follow-up outreach contacts after donation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40472-022-00379-w.

Mental Health and Well-Being of Solid Organ Transplant Donors. The Forgotten Sacrifices

In light of a global organ shortage, living donor transplantation has become increasingly relevant as an alternative to deceased donor transplantation. While current research has revolved around the medical aspects of transplantation, there remains a paucity of literature regarding the quality of life (QOL) of living donors. Hence, this review aims to provide a comprehensive outline of the current landscape of living liver and kidney transplantation, with a focus on the mental health and wellbeing of donors. As highlighted in previous studies, organ donation has a significant impact on both physical and mental aspects of donor wellbeing, with marked deteriorations occurring in the short term. Furthermore, other qualitative aspects such as financial burden contribute greatly to donor distress, reflecting a need for improved donor care. To address these pertinent issues, recommendations for a successful transplant program are detailed in this review, which encompasses psychological and social aspects of donor care throughout the donation process. Further research can be done on the impact of recipient deaths on donor QOL and appropriate interventions. Overall, given the selfless sacrifices of living donors, the care of their mental wellbeing is essential. Therefore, greater emphasis should be placed on the provision of adequate psychosocial support for them.

Economic Consequences of Adult Living Kidney Donation: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Current guidelines mandate organ donation to be financially neutral such that it neither rewards nor exploits donors. This systematic review was conducted to assess the magnitude and type of costs incurred by adult living kidney donors and to identify those at risk of financial hardship.

METHODS

We searched English-language journal articles and working papers assessing direct and indirect costs incurred by donors on PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, the National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database, Research Papers in Economics, and EconLit in 2005 and thereafter. Estimates of total costs, types of costs, and characteristics of donors who incurred the financial burden were extracted.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were identified involving 6158 donors. Average donor-borne costs ranged from US$900 to US$19 900 (2019 values) over the period from predonation evaluation to the end of the first postoperative year. Less than half of donors sought financial assistance and 80% had financial loss. Out-of-pocket payments for travel and health services were the most reported items where lost income accounted for the largest proportion (23.2%-83.7%) of total costs. New indirect cost items were identified to be insurance difficulty, exercise impairment, and caregiver income loss. Donors from lower-income households and those who traveled long distances reported the greatest financial hardship.

CONCLUSIONS

Most kidney donors are undercompensated. Our findings highlight gaps in donor compensation for predonation evaluation, long-distance donations, and lifetime insurance protection. Additional studies outside of North America are needed to gain a global prospective on how to provide for financial neutrality for kidney donors.

Risks of Living Kidney Donation: Current State of Knowledge on Outcomes Important to Donors

In the past decade, there have been increasing efforts to better define and quantify the short- and long-term risks of living kidney donation. Recent studies have expanded upon the previous literature by focusing on outcomes that are important to potential and previous donors, applying unique databases and/or registries to follow large cohorts of donors for longer periods of time, and comparing outcomes with healthy nondonor controls to estimate attributable risks of donation. Leading outcomes important to living kidney donors include kidney health, surgical risks, and psychosocial effects of donation. Recent data support that living donors may experience a small increased risk of severe CKD and ESKD compared with healthy nondonors. For most donors, the 15-year risk of kidney failure is <1%, but for certain populations, such as young, black men, this risk may be higher. New risk prediction tools that combine the effects of demographic and health factors, and innovations in genetic risk markers are improving kidney risk stratification. Minor perioperative complications occur in 10%-20% of donor nephrectomy cases, but major complications occur in <3%, and the risk of perioperative death is <0.03%. Generally, living kidney donors have similar or improved psychosocial outcomes, such as quality of life, after donation compared with before donation and compared with nondonors. Although the donation process should be financially neutral, living kidney donors may experience out-of-pocket expenses and lost wages that may or may not be completely covered through regional or national reimbursement programs, and may face difficulties arranging subsequent life and health insurance. Living kidney donors should be fully informed of the perioperative and long-term risks before making their decision to donate. Follow-up care allows for preventative care measures to mitigate risk and ongoing surveillance and reporting of donor outcomes to inform prior and future living kidney donors.

Assessing the Attitudes and Perceptions Regarding the Use of Mobile Health Technologies for Living Kidney Donor Follow-Up: Survey Study

BACKGROUND

In 2013, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network began requiring transplant centers in the United States to collect and report postdonation living kidney donor follow-up data at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Despite this requirement, <50% of transplant centers have been able to collect and report the required data. Previous work identified a number of barriers to living kidney donor follow-up, including logistical and administrative barriers for transplant centers and cost and functional barriers for donors. Novel smartphone-based mobile health (mHealth) technologies might reduce the burden of living kidney donor follow-up for centers and donors. However, the attitudes and perceptions toward the incorporation of mHealth into postdonation care among living kidney donors are unknown. Understanding donor attitudes and perceptions will be vital to the creation of a patient-oriented mHealth system to improve living donor follow-up in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to assess living kidney donor attitudes and perceptions associated with the use of mHealth for follow-up.

METHODS

We developed and administered a cross-sectional 14-question survey to 100 living kidney donors at our transplant center. All participants were part of an ongoing longitudinal study of long-term outcomes in living kidney donors. The survey included questions on smartphone use, current health maintenance behaviors, accessibility to health information, and attitudes toward using mHealth for living kidney donor follow-up.

RESULTS

Of the 100 participants surveyed, 94 owned a smartphone (35 Android, 58 iPhone, 1 Blackberry), 37 had accessed their electronic medical record on their smartphone, and 38 had tracked their exercise and physical activity on their smartphone. While 77% (72/93) of participants who owned a smartphone and had asked a medical question in the last year placed the most trust with their doctors, nurses, or other health care professionals regarding answering a health-related question, 52% (48/93) most often accessed health information elsewhere. Overall, 79% (74/94) of smartphone-owning participants perceived accessing living kidney donor information and resources on their smartphone as useful. Additionally, 80% (75/94) perceived completing some living kidney donor follow-up via mHealth as useful. There were no significant differences in median age (60 vs 59 years; P=.65), median years since donation (10 vs 12 years; P=.45), gender (36/75, 36%, vs 37/75, 37%, male; P=.57), or race (70/75, 93%, vs 18/19, 95%, white; P=.34) between those who perceived mHealth as useful for living kidney donor follow-up and those who did not, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, smartphone ownership was high (94/100, 94.0%), and 79% (74/94) of surveyed smartphone-owning donors felt that it would be useful to complete their required follow-up with an mHealth tool, with no significant differences by age, sex, or race. These results suggest that patients would benefit from an mHealth tool to perform living donor follow-up.

KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors

The 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors is intended to assist medical professionals who evaluate living kidney donor candidates and provide care before, during and after donation. The guideline development process followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies that included critical appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations. However, many recommendations, for which there was no evidence or no systematic search for evidence was undertaken by the Evidence Review Team, were issued as ungraded expert opinion recommendations. The guideline work group concluded that a comprehensive approach to risk assessment should replace decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation. Original data analyses were undertaken to produce a "proof-in-concept" risk-prediction model for kidney failure to support a framework for quantitative risk assessment in the donor candidate evaluation and defensible shared decision making. This framework is grounded in the simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics. The processes and framework for the donor candidate evaluation are presented, along with recommendations for optimal care before, during, and after donation. Limitations of the evidence are discussed, especially regarding the lack of definitive prospective studies and clinical outcome trials. Suggestions for future research, including the need for continued refinement of long-term risk prediction and novel approaches to estimating donation-attributable risks, are also provided.In citing this document, the following format should be used: Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Living Kidney Donor Work Group. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors. Transplantation. 2017;101(Suppl 8S):S1-S109.

Patterns of primary care utilization before and after living kidney donation

BACKGROUND

Annual visits with a primary care provider (PCP) are recommended for living kidney donors to monitor long-term health postdonation, yet adherence to this recommendation is unknown.

METHODS

We surveyed 1170 living donors from our center from 1970 to 2012 to ascertain frequency of PCP visits pre- and postdonation. Interviews occurred median (IQR) 6.6 (3.8-11.0) years post-transplant. We used multivariate logistic regression to examine associations between donor characteristics and PCP visit frequency.

RESULTS

Overall, only 18.6% had less-than-annual PCP follow-up postdonation. The strongest predictor of postdonation PCP visit frequency was predonation PCP visit frequency. Donors who had less-than-annual PCP visits before donation were substantially more likely to report less-than-annual PCP visits postdonation (OR=9.8 14.421.0, P<.001). Men were more likely to report less-than-annual PCP visits postdonation (adjusted OR=1.2 1.62.3, P<.01); this association was amplified in unmarried/noncohabiting men (aOR=2.4 3.96.3, P<.001). Donors without college education were also more likely to report less-than-annual PCP visits postdonation (aOR=1.3 1.82.5 , P=.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The importance of annual PCP visits should be emphasized to all living donors, especially those with less education, men (particularly single men), and donors who did not see their PCP annually before donation.

Long-Term Non-End-Stage Renal Disease Risks After Living Kidney Donation

Despite generally positive outcomes and high rates of satisfaction, living kidney donors are at risk for both medical and psychosocial problems. In this review, the authors summarize non-end-stage renal disease (ESRD) risks for donors and describe limitations to the data. We review the evidence of medical risks (e.g. increased cardiovascular disease and mortality, preeclampsia) and psychosocial risks (e.g. mood disturbance, financial burden). We then discuss the evidence of differential risks among subsets and the impact of postdonation events (e.g. development of diabetes). Collectively, available evidence indicates the following. (1) Recognizing the importance of non-ESRD risks has been overshadowed by analyses of the reported risk of ESRD. This imbalance should be remedied. (2) There is little quantification of the true contribution of donation to medical and psychosocial outcomes. (3) Most studies, to date, have been retrospective, with limited sample sizes and diversity and with less-than-ideal controls for comparison of outcomes. (4) Many postdonation events (diabetes and hypertension) can now be reasonably predicted, and their association with adverse outcomes can be quantified. (5) Mechanisms and systems need to be implemented to evaluate and care for donors who develop medical and/or psychosocial problems. (6) Costs to donors are a significant burden, and making donation financially neutral should be a priority.

Social and Financial Outcomes of Living Liver Donation: A Prospective Investigation Within the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study 2 (A2ALL-2)

Because results from single-center (mostly kidney) donor studies demonstrate interpersonal relationship and financial strains for some donors, we conducted a liver donor study involving nine centers within the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study 2 (A2ALL-2) consortium. Among other initiatives, A2ALL-2 examined the nature of these outcomes following donation. Using validated measures, donors were prospectively surveyed before donation and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 mo after donation. Repeated-measures regression models were used to examine social relationship and financial outcomes over time and to identify relevant predictors. Of 297 eligible donors, 271 (91%) consented and were interviewed at least once. Relationship changes were positive overall across postdonation time points, with nearly one-third reporting improved donor family and spousal or partner relationships and >50% reporting improved recipient relationships. The majority of donors, however, reported cumulative out-of-pocket medical and nonmedical expenses, which were judged burdensome by 44% of donors. Lower income predicted burdensome donation costs. Those who anticipated financial concerns and who held nonprofessional positions before donation were more likely to experience adverse financial outcomes. These data support the need for initiatives to reduce financial burden.

Health Insurance Trends in United States Living Kidney Donors (2004 to 2015)

Some transplant programs consider the lack of health insurance as a contraindication to living kidney donation. Still, prior studies have shown that many adults are uninsured at time of donation. We extend the study of donor health insurance status over a longer time period and examine associations between insurance status and relevant sociodemographic and health characteristics. We queried the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network registry for all living kidney donors (LKDs) between July 2004 and July 2015. Of the 53 724 LKDs with known health insurance status, 8306 (16%) were uninsured at the time of donation. Younger (18 to 34 years old), male, minority, unemployed, less educated, unmarried LKDs and those who were smokers and normotensive were more likely to not have health insurance at the time of donation. Compared to those with no health risk factors (i.e. obesity, smoking, hypertension, estimated glomerular filtration rate <60, proteinuria) (14%), LKDs with 1 (18%) or ≥2 (21%) health risk factors at the time of donation were more likely to be uninsured (p < 0.0001). Among those with ≥2 health risk factors, blacks (28%) and Hispanics (27%) had higher likelihood of being uninsured compared to whites (19%; p < 0.001). Study findings underscore the importance of providing health insurance benefits to all previous and future LKDs.

Living Kidney Donors' Information Needs and Preferences

INTRODUCTION

Past research suggests the information exchanged from transplant centers to potential living kidney donors is, in many cases, suboptimal. The purpose of this study was to assess donors' perceptions of the information provided while considering living donation.

METHODS

Semistructured telephone interviews conducted with 81 past living donors seen at 1 mid-Atlantic transplant center assessed the extent to which living kidney donors deemed Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)-mandated information useful to making a decision about donation and to which more information was or would have been desired before donating. Understanding of and satisfaction with the information was also assessed.

RESULTS

Participants were primarily white (67.9%), females (67.9%), with an average age of 57.8 years. Perceived usefulness ranged from a mean of 3.1 for the confidentiality of the transplant center's communication to 4.1 for postoperative care and short-term medical risks of donation. Donors of minority descent as well as those with more education and less income found the information provided most useful. Few donors desired additional information about the right to opt out of (8.6%) or decline (13.6%) donation; however, most wanted more information regarding the risk of being refused health, disability and/or life insurance after donating (77.8%), and insurance coverage for future health problems (66.7%).

DISCUSSION

This study revealed limited usefulness of certain CMS-mandated topics and a desire for additional information about donation. Efforts to standardize the informed consent process should incorporate donors' perspectives as to the specific topics, quantity of information, and the mode of communication found most useful when considering living donation.

Financial Neutrality for Living Organ Donors: Reasoning, Rationale, Definitions, and Implementation Strategies

In the United States, live organ donation can be a costly and burdensome undertaking for donors. While most donation-related medical expenses are covered, many donors still face lost wages, travel expenses, incidentals, and potential for future insurability problems. Despite widespread consensus that live donors (LD) should not be responsible for the costs associated with donation, little has changed to alleviate financial burdens for LDs in the last decade. To achieve this goal, the transplant community must actively pursue strategies and policies to eliminate unreimbursed out-of-pocket costs to LDs. Costs should be more appropriately distributed across all stakeholders; this will also make live donation possible for people who, in the current system, cannot afford to proceed. We propose the goal of LD "financial neutrality," offer an operational definition to include the coverage/reimbursement of all medical, travel, and lodging costs, along with lost wages, related to the act of donating an organ, and guidance for consideration of medical care coverage, and wage and other expense reimbursement. The intent of this report is to provide a foundation to inform discussion within the transplant community and to advance initiatives for policy and resource allocation.

Living-Donor Kidney Transplantation: Reducing Financial Barriers to Live Kidney Donation--Recommendations from a Consensus Conference

Live-donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the best treatment for eligible people with late-stage kidney disease. Despite this, living kidney donation rates have declined in the United States in recent years. A potential source of this decline is the financial impact on potential and actual living kidney donors (LKDs). Recent evidence indicates that the economic climate may be associated with the decline in LDKT and that there are nontrivial financial ramifications for some LKDs. In June 2014, the American Society of Transplantation's Live Donor Community of Practice convened a Consensus Conference on Best Practices in Live Kidney Donation. The conference included transplant professionals, patients, and other key stakeholders (with the financial support of 10 other organizations) and sought to identify best practices, knowledge gaps, and opportunities pertaining to living kidney donation. This workgroup was tasked with exploring systemic and financial barriers to living kidney donation. The workgroup reviewed literature that assessed the financial effect of living kidney donation, analyzed employment and insurance factors, discussed international models for addressing direct and indirect costs faced by LKDs, and summarized current available resources. The workgroup developed the following series of recommendations to reduce financial and systemic barriers and achieve financial neutrality for LKDs: (1) allocate resources for standardized reimbursement of LKDs' lost wages and incidental costs; (2) pass legislation to offer employment and insurability protections to LKDs; (3) create an LKD financial toolkit to provide standardized, vetted education to donors and providers about options to maximize donor coverage and minimize financial effect within the current climate; and (4) promote further research to identify systemic barriers to living donation and LDKT to ensure the creation of mitigation strategies.

Living kidney donation: outcomes, ethics, and uncertainty

Since the first living-donor kidney transplantation in 1954, more than half a million living kidney donations have occurred and research has advanced knowledge about long-term donor outcomes. Donors in developed countries have a similar life expectancy and quality of life as healthy non-donors. Living kidney donation is associated with an increased risk of end-stage renal disease, although this outcome is uncommon (<0·5% increase in incidence at 15 years). Kidney donation seems to elevate the risks of gestational hypertension and pre-eclampsia. Many donors incur financial expenses due to factors such as lost wages, need for sick days, and travel expenses. Yet, most donors have no regrets about donation. Living kidney donation is practised ethically when informed consent incorporates information about risks, uncertainty about outcomes is acknowledged when it exists, and a donor's risks are proportional to benefits for the donor and recipient. Future research should determine whether outcomes are similar for donors from developing countries and donors with pre-existing conditions such as obesity.

Living and deceased organ donation should be financially neutral acts

The supply of organs—particularly kidneys—donated by living and deceased donors falls short of the number of patients added annually to transplant waiting lists in the United States. To remedy this problem, a number of prominent physicians, ethicists, economists and others have mounted a campaign to suspend the prohibitions in the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 (NOTA) on the buying and selling of organs. The argument that providing financial benefits would incentivize enough people to part with a kidney (or a portion of a liver) to clear the waiting lists is flawed. This commentary marshals arguments against the claim that the shortage of donor organs would best be overcome by providing financial incentives for donation. We can increase the number of organs available for transplantation by removing all financial disincentives that deter unpaid living or deceased kidney donation. These disincentives include a range of burdens, such as the costs of travel and lodging for medical evaluation and surgery, lost wages, and the expense of dependent care during the period of organ removal and recuperation. Organ donation should remain an act that is financially neutral for donors, neither imposing financial burdens nor enriching them monetarily.