The cost of procuring deceased donor kidneys: Evidence from OPO cost reports 2013-2017

Cost-effectiveness analysis of uterus transplantation vs. gestational carrier for treatment of absolute uterine factor infertility in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost-effectiveness of treatment for patients with absolute uterine factor infertility to achieve one or two singleton births by gestational carrier vs. uterus transplant.

DESIGN

Decision analysis from the US healthcare sector perspective, with time horizons to achieve one or two singleton births.

SUBJECTS

Patients with uterine factor infertility desiring family building.

EXPOSURE

Gestational carrier or uterus transplant.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, comparing the costs (2020 US Dollars) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs] and live births) to achieve one or two births by gestational carrier vs. uterus transplant.

RESULTS

In the base case of one singleton birth, the overall cost using a gestational carrier was $97,712.90 ($56,985.20-$153,084.20) compared with $116,137.20 ($67,142.88-$182,290.86) after uterus transplant. Quality-adjusted life years were higher in the gestational carrier arm (0.93) compared with the uterus transplant (0.90) and overall rates of live birth were also higher in the gestational carrier arm (94%) compared with the uterus transplant arm (77%). Costs of the gestational carrier and uterus transplant recipient were the most significant cost variables in the model. Monte Carlo simulation showed that uterus transplant had a 37% chance of being the cost-effective strategy for a single live birth at a willingness to pay of $150,000/QALY. In the case of two singleton births, the cost using a gestational carrier was $186,278.56 ($103,597.81-$296,010.27) compared with $164,276.84 ($111,961.91-$229,394.43) after uterus transplant. Quality-adjusted life years were again higher in the gestational carrier arm (0.93) than the uterus transplant (0.89). Overall rates of two live births were also higher in the gestational carrier arm (86%) compared with the uterus transplant arm (66%). Monte Carlo simulation showed that uterine transplant has a 62% chance of being the cost-effective strategy for two live births at a willingness to pay $150,000/QALY.

CONCLUSION

In the United States, treatment of uterine factor infertility with a gestational carrier is likely the most cost-effective approach for patients delivering a single child. However, the absolute costs associated with uterus transplants were 14% less than a gestational carrier for those having two live singleton births.

How Much Will a Pig Organ Transplant Cost? A Preliminary Estimate of the Cost of Xenotransplantation Versus Allotransplantation in the USA

We reviewed the costs of organ allotransplantation and attempted to estimate the potential costs of xenotransplantation (based on the premise that, when clinically established, the results of pig organ xenotransplantation would be at least equal to those of allotransplantation). The care of patients with end-stage organ failure waiting for an allograft is expensive, particularly if chronic dialysis or mechanical support is required. Xenotransplantation has the potential to eliminate wait times for organ transplants, significantly reduce certain management costs, for example, chronic dialysis, and enable early transplantation before comorbidities develop or increase. The cost of the surgical procurement of a pig organ and its transplantation will be similar to that of allotransplantation, as will the cost of immunosuppressive therapy. The major "unknown" is the cost of purchasing a gene-edited pig organ, which is likely to be considerable. We conclude that there will be significant cost savings for the pretransplant care of an individual patient, but these may be offset by the cost of the gene-edited pig organ. However, the ready availability of an unlimited organ supply will greatly increase the number of transplants carried out each year, thus increasing the overall expenditure on transplantation.

The Cost of Procuring Deceased Donor Livers: Evidence From US Organ Procurement Organization Cost Reports, 2013-2018

Deceased donor organs for transplantation are costly. Expenses include donor assessment, pre-operative care of acceptable donors, surgical organ recovery, preservation and transport, and other costs. US Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs) serve defined geographic areas in which each OPO has exclusive organ recovery responsibilities including detailed reporting of costs. We sought to determine the costs of procuring deceased donor livers by examining reported organ acquisition costs from OPO cost reports. Using 6 years of US OPO cost report data for each OPO (2013-2018), we determined the average cost of recovering a viable (i.e., transplanted) liver for each of the 51 independent US OPOs. We examined predictors of these costs including the number of livers procured, the percent of nonviable livers, direct procurement costs, coordinator salaries, professional education, and local cost of living. A cost curve estimated the relationship between the cost of livers and the number of locally procured livers. The average cost of procured livers by individual OPO-year varied widely from $11 393 to $65 556 (average $31 659) over the six study years. An increase in the overall number of procured livers was associated with lower direct costs, administrative, and procurement overhead costs, but this association differed for imported livers. Cost per local liver decreased linearly for each additional liver, while importing more livers was only cost saving until 200 livers, with imported livers costing more ($39K vs. $31.7K). The largest predictor of variation in cost was the aggregate of direct costs (e.g., hospital costs) to recover the organ (57%). Cost increases were 2.5% per year (+$766/year). This information may be valuable in determining how OPOs might improve service to transplant centers and the patients they serve.

The Medical Costs of Determining Eligibility and Waiting for a Kidney Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Recent efforts to increase access to kidney transplant (KTx) in the United States include increasing referrals to transplant programs, leading to more pretransplant services. Transplant programs reconcile the costs of these services through the Organ Acquisition Cost Center (OACC).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the costs associated with pretransplant services by applying microeconomic methods to OACC costs reported by transplant hospitals.

RESEARCH DESIGN, SUBJECTS, AND MEASURES

For all US adult kidney transplant hospitals from 2013 through 2018 (n=193), we crosslinked the total OACC costs (at the hospital-fiscal year level) to proxy measures of volumes of pretransplant services. We used a multiple-output cost function, regressing total OACC costs against proxy measures for volumes of pretransplant services and adjusting for patient characteristics, to calculate the marginal cost of each pretransplant service.

RESULTS

Over 1015 adult hospital-years, median OACC costs attributable to the pretransplant services were $5 million. Marginal costs for the pretransplant services were: initial transplant evaluation, $9k per waitlist addition; waitlist management, $2k per patient-year on the waitlist; deceased donor offer management, $1k per offer; living donor evaluation, procurement and follow-up: $26k per living donor. Longer time on dialysis among patients added to the waitlist was associated with higher OACC costs at the transplant hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

To achieve the policy goals of more access to KTx, sufficient funding is needed to support the increase in volume of pretransplant services. Future studies should assess the relative value of each service and explore ways to enhance efficiency.

Costs related to obtaining organs for transplantation: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The number of transplants in the world is growing, although there is a demand that exceeds supply. It is worth mentioning that the costs for obtaining organs are considered high. However, few studies have been developed on analyzing the costs of obtaining organs and tissues for transplants in order to support the decision-making of managers and health professionals.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the studies related to the cost of obtaining organs for transplants from a deceased donor.

METHOD

A systematic literature review was conducted in the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library CINAHAL, Virtual Health Library (BVS), SCOPUS, Web of Science and EMBASE, using the following descriptors: Costs and cost analysis; Donor Selection; Tissue and Organ Procurement; Tissue and Organ Harvesting; and Tissue Donors, in studies published until April 2021. The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute's Checklist for Economic Assessments. It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis due to the heterogeneity of the studies.

RESULTS

A total of 1731 studies were identified, of which 11 were analyzed. The cost of kidneys in US dollars (USD) ranged between USD $1672 and USD $25,058. Obtaining a liver ranged from USD $586 to USD $44,478. Heart procurement ranged from USD $633 to USD $24,264. The combined heart-lung transplant ranged from USD $860 to USD $23,203. Obtaining the pancreas ranged from USD $413 to USD $29,708.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost of obtaining organs for transplants from a deceased donor is substantial and varies widely across different studies. The overall cost of failures to obtain organs is currently unknown. Understanding organ procurement expenses can help clarify areas in which organ and tissue procurement can improve in cost and efficiency.

Cost Structures of US Organ Procurement Organizations

BACKGROUND

The goal is to provide a national analysis of organ procurement organization (OPO) costs.

METHODS

Five years of data, for 51 of the 58 OPOs (2013-2017, a near census) were obtained under a FOIA. OPOs are not-for-profit federal contractors with a geographic monopoly. A generalized 15-factor cost regression model was estimated with adjustments to precision of estimates (P) for repeated observations. Selected measures were validated by comparison to IRS forms.

RESULTS

Decease donor organ procurement is a $1B/y operation with over 26 000 transplants/y. Over 60% of the cost of an organ is overhead. Profits are $2.3M/OPO/y. Total assets are $45M/OPO and growing at 9%/y. "Tissue" (skin, bones) generates $2-3M profit/OPO/y. A comparison of the highest with the lower costing OPOs showed our model explained 75% of the cost difference. Comparing costs across OPOs showed that highest-cost OPOs are smaller, import 44% more kidneys, face 6% higher labor costs, report 98% higher compensation for support personnel, spend 46% more on professional education, have 44% fewer assets, compensate their Executive Director 36% less, and have a lower procurement performance (SDRR) score.

CONCLUSIONS

Profits and assets suggest that OPOs are fiscally secure and OPO finances are not a source of the organ shortage. Asset accumulation ($45M/OPO) of incumbents suggests establishing a competitive market with new entrants is unlikely. Kidney-cost allocations support tissue procurements. Professional education spending does not reduce procurement costs. OPO importing of organs from other OPOs is a complex issue possibly increasing cost ($6K/kidney).

The organ procurement costs of expanding deceased donor organ acceptance criteria: Evidence from a cost function model

A potential solution to the deceased donor organ shortage is to expand donor acceptability criteria. The procurement cost implications of using nonstandard donors is unknown. Using 5 years of US organ procurement organization (OPO) data, we built a cost function model to make cost projections: the total cost was the dependent variable; production outputs, including the number of donors and organs procured, were the independent variables. In the model, procuring one kidney or procuring both kidneys from double/en bloc transplantation from a single-organ donor resulted in a marginal cost of $55 k (95% confidence interval [CI] $28 k, $99 k) per kidney, and procuring only the liver from a single-organ donor results in a marginal cost of $41 k (95% CI $12 k, $69 k) per liver. Procuring two kidneys for two candidates from a donor lowered the marginal cost to $36 k (95% CI $22 k, $66 k) per kidney, and procuring two kidneys and a liver lowers the marginal cost to $24 k (95% CI $17 k, $45 k) per organ. Economies of scale were observed, where high OPO volume was correlated with lower costs. Despite higher cost per organ than for standard donors, kidney transplantation from nonstandard donors remained cost-effective based on contemporary US data.

Potential donor characteristics and decisions made by organ procurement organization staff: Results of a discrete choice experiment

Organ procurement organizations (OPOs) evaluate referrals for deceased organ donation in the United States. Efforts to expand the donor pool, such as the HIV organ policy equity (HOPE) Act that permits transplants from HIV-positive donors to HIV-positive recipients, can only succeed if OPOs pursue referrals. However, relatively little is known about how OPO staff evaluate referrals. To better understand this process, OPO staff completed a discrete choice experiment to quantify the relative importance of seven donor characteristics on the decision to pursue a theoretical donor. Relative importance was defined by Partworth utility using a hierarchical Bayesian conditional logit model. There were 51 respondents from 36 of 58 OPOs in the United States. Of the seven attributes, organ and tissue potential were the most influential, followed by age, type of death, HIV status, donor registration, and Hepatitis C status. To be preferred to an HIV-negative donor, an HIV-positive donor needed to have the potential to donate two additional organs. These data provide insight into the preferences of OPO referral staff and may help explain the lower than expected number of HIV-positive transplants performed since the passage of the HOPE Act.

Pig kidney xenotransplantation: Progress toward clinical trials

Pig organ xenotransplantation offers a solution to the shortage of deceased human organs for transplantation. The pathobiological response to a pig xenograft is complex, involving antibody, complement, coagulation, inflammatory, and cellular responses. To overcome these barriers, genetic manipulation of the organ-source pigs has largely been directed to two major aims-(a) deletion of expression of the known carbohydrate xenoantigens against which humans have natural (preformed) antibodies, and (b) transgenic expression of human protective proteins, for example, complement- and coagulation-regulatory proteins. Conventional (FDA-approved) immunosuppressive therapy is unsuccessful in preventing an adaptive immune response to pig cells, but blockade of the CD40:CD154 costimulation pathway is successful. Survival of genetically engineered pig kidneys in immunosuppressed nonhuman primates can now be measured in months. Non-immunological aspects, for example, pig renal function, a hypovolemia syndrome, and rapid growth of the pig kidney after transplantation, are briefly discussed. We suggest that patients on the wait-list for a deceased human kidney graft who are unlikely to receive one due to long waiting times are those for whom kidney xenotransplantation might first be considered. The potential risk of infection, public attitudes to xenotransplantation, and ethical, regulatory, and financial aspects are briefly addressed.