Survival following liver transplant (LT) is influenced by a variety of factors, including donor risk factors and recipient disease burden and co-morbidities. It is difficult to separate these effects from those of socioeconomic factors, such as income or insurance. The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) created equitable access policies, such as Share 35, to ensure that organs are distributed to individuals with greatest medical need; however, the effect of Share 35 on disparities in post-LT survival is not clear. This study aimed to (1) characterize associations between post-transplant survival and race and ethnicity, income, insurance, and citizenship status, when adjusted for other clinical and demographic factors that may influence survival, and (2) determine if the direction of associations changed after Share 35.

A retrospective, cohort study of adult LT recipients (n = 83,254) from the UNOS database from 2005 to 2019 was conducted. Kaplan-Meier survival graphs and stepwise multivariate cox-regression analyses were performed to characterize the effects of socioeconomic status on post-LT survival, adjusted for recipient and donor characteristics, across the time period and after Share 35.

Male sex (HR: 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90-0.96)), private insurance (0.91 (0.88-0.94)), income (0.82 (0.79-0.85)), U.S. citizenship, and Asian (0.81 (0.75-0.88)) or Hispanic (0.82 (0.79-0.86)) race and ethnicity were associated with higher post-transplant survival, after adjustment for clinical and demographic factors (Table 3). These associations were found across the entire time period studied and many persisted after the implementation of Share 35 in 2013 (Table 3; male sex (0.84 (0.79-0.90)), private insurance (0.94 (0.89-1.00)), income (0.82 (0.77-0.89)), and Asian (0.87 (0.73-1.02)) or Hispanic (0.88 (0.81-0.96)) race and ethnicity).

Recipients' socioeconomic factors at time of transplant may impact long-term post-transplant survival, and a single policy may not significantly alter these structural health inequalities.

None.

Studies have demonstrated that there are sex disparities in the rate of liver transplantation. However, little is known statistically about whether this disparity is caused by liver compartment size, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease adjustments, or regional differences.

We use retrospective data from the United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Treatment Analysis and Research data files for liver transplantation from 1995 through 2012. The final sample consists of 150,149 patients. These data contain information on all individuals who registered for the liver transplant waiting list as well as updated outcome data. Linear probability and logistic regression models were both used.

Women were 4.8 percentage points less likely to receive a transplant. Adjustment for race, weight, body mass index, region, education, and other characteristics attenuated the sex difference by roughly 19% (from 4.8 to 3.9 percentage points). The disparity was consistent across the 11 United Network for Organ Sharing allocation regions. Comparing the heaviest women to the lightest men, the disparity flipped. Pairwise comparisons between men and women of various sizes suggest that disparities in favor of men increase with the ratio of male-to-female size.

Our results document persistent sex disparity in liver transplantation, only 19% of which is explained by size differentials between men and women. Differences in rates of transplantation are increasing in the ratio of male-to-female height and weight, suggesting that some of the disparity is explained by differences in liver compartment size.

Despite the increasing prevalence of end-stage liver disease in older adults, there is no consensus to determine suitability for liver transplantation (LT) in the elderly. Disparities in LT access exist, with a disproportionately lower percentage of African Americans (AAs) receiving LT. Understanding waitlist outcomes in older adults, specifically AAs, will identify opportunities to improve LT access for this vulnerable population.

All adult, liver-only white and AA LT waitlist candidates (January 1, 2003 to October 1, 2015) were identified in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Age and race categories were defined: younger white (age <60 years), younger AA, older white (age, ≥60 years), and older AA. Outcomes were delisting, transplantation, and mortality and were modeled using Fine and Gray competing risks.

Among 101 805 candidates, 58.4% underwent transplantation, 14.7% died while listed, and 21.4% were delisted. Among those delisted, 36.1% died, whereas 7.4% were subsequently relisted. Both older AAs and older whites were more likely than younger whites to be delisted and to die after delisting. Older whites had higher incidence of waitlist mortality than younger whites (subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.13). All AAs and older whites had decreased incidence of LT, compared with younger whites.

Both older age and AA race were associated with decreased cumulative incidence of transplantation. Independent of race, older candidates had increased incidences of delisting and mortality after delisting than younger whites. Our findings support the need for interventions to ensure medical suitability for LT among older adults and to address disparities in LT access for AAs.

Ample evidence suggests continued racial disparities once listed for liver transplantation, though few studies examine disparities in the selection process for listing. The objective of this study, via retrospective chart review, was to determine whether listing for liver transplantation was influenced by socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity. We identified 1968 patients with end-stage liver disease who underwent evaluation at a large, Midwestern center from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2012 (72.9% white, 19.6% black, and 7.5% other). Over half (54.6%) of evaluated patients were listed; the three most common reasons for not listing were medical contraindications (11.9%), patient expired during evaluation (7.0%), and psychosocial contraindications (5.9%). In multivariable logistic regressions (listed vs not listed), across the three racial categories, the odds of being listed were lower for alcohol-induced hepatitis (±hepatitis C), unmarried, more than one insurance, inadequate insurance, and lower annual household income quartile. Similar factors predicted time to transplant listing, including being identified as black race. Black race, even when adjusting for the above mentioned medical and socioeconomic factors, was associated with 26% lower odds of being listed and a longer time to listing decision compared to all other patients.

Although federal mandate prohibits the allocation of solid organs for transplantation based on "accidents of geography," geographic variation of transplantable organs is well documented. This study explores regional differences in communication in requests for organ donation. Administrative data from nine partnering organ procurement organizations and interview data from 1339 family decision makers (FDMs) were compared across eight geographically distinct US donor service areas (DSAs). Authorization for organ donation ranged from 60.4% to 98.1% across DSAs. FDMs from the three regions with the lowest authorization rates reported the lowest levels of satisfaction with the time spent discussing donation and with the request process, discussion of the least donation-related topics, the highest levels of pressure to donate, and the least comfort with the donation decision. Organ procurement organization region predicted authorization (odds ratios ranged from 8.14 to 0.24), as did time spent discussing donation (OR = 2.11), the number of donation-related topics discussed (OR = 1.14), and requesters' communication skill (OR = 1.14). Standardized training for organ donation request staff is needed to ensure the highest quality communication during requests, optimize rates of family authorization to donation in all regions, and increase the supply of organs available for transplantation.

To illustrate the application and utility of Geographic Information System (GIS) in exploring patterns of liver transplantation. Specifically, we aim to describe the geographic distribution of transplant registrations and identify disparities in access to liver transplantation across United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) region 1.

Based on UNOS data, the number of listed transplant candidates by ZIP code from 2003 to 2012 for Region 1 was obtained. Choropleth (color-coded) maps were used to visualize the geographic distribution of transplant registrations across the region. Spatial interaction analysis was used to analyze the geographic pattern of total transplant registrations by ZIP code. Factors tested included ZIP code log population and log distance from each ZIP code to the nearest transplant center; ZIP code population density; distance from the nearest city over 50000; and dummy variables for state residence and location in the southern portion of the region.

Visualization of transplant registrations revealed geographic disparities in organ allocation across Region 1. The total number of registrations was highest in the southern portion of the region. Spatial interaction analysis, after adjusting for the size of the underlying population, revealed statistically significant clustering of high and low rates in several geographic areas could not be predicted based solely on distance to the transplant center or density of population.

GIS represents a new method to evaluate the access to liver transplantation within one region and can be used to identify the presence of disparities and reasons for their existence in order to alleviate them.

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a comparable alternative to deceased donor liver transplantation and can mitigate the risk of dying while waiting for transplant. Although evidence exists of decreased utilization of living donor kidney transplants among racial minorities, little is known about access to LDLT among racial/ethnic minorities. We used Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing data from February 27, 2002 to June 4, 2014 from all adult liver transplant recipients at LDLT-capable transplant centers to evaluate differential utilization of LDLTs based on race/ethnicity. We then used data from 2 major urban transplant centers to analyze donor inquiries and donor rule-outs based on racial/ethnic determination. Nationally, of 35,401 total liver transplant recipients performed at a LDLT-performing transplant center, 2171 (6.1%) received a LDLT. In multivariate generalized estimating equation models, racial/ethnic minorities were significantly less likely to receive LDLTs when compared to white patients. For cholestatic liver disease, the odds ratios of receiving LDLT based on racial/ethnic group for African American, Hispanic, and Asian patients compared to white patients were 0.35 (95% CI, 0.20-0.60), 0.58 (95% CI, 0.34-0.99), and 0.11 (95% CI, 0.02-0.55), respectively. For noncholestatic liver disease, the odds ratios by racial/ethnic group were 0.53 (95% CI, 0.40-0.71), 0.78 (95% CI, 0.64-0.94), and 0.45 (95% CI, 0.33-0.60) respectively. Transplant center-specific data demonstrated that African American patients received fewer per-patient donation inquiries than white patients, whereas fewer African American potential donors were ruled out for obesity. In conclusion, racial/ethnic minorities receive a disproportionately low percentage of LDLTs, due in part to fewer initial inquiries by potential donors. This represents a major inequality in access to a vital health care resource and demands outreach to both patients and potential donors.

In the United States, African Americans and whites differ in access to the deceased donor renal transplant waitlist. The extent to which racial disparities in waitlisting differ between United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) regions is understudied.

The US Renal Data System (USRDS) was linked with US census data to examine time from dialysis initiation to waitlisting for whites (n = 188,410) and African Americans (n = 144,335) using Cox proportional hazards across 11 UNOS regions, adjusting for potentially confounding individual, neighborhood, and state characteristics.

Likelihood of waitlisting varies significantly by UNOS region, overall and by race. Additionally, African Americans face significantly lower likelihood of waitlisting compared to whites in all but two regions (1 and 6). Overall, 39% of African Americans with ESRD reside in Regions 3 and 4--regions with a large racial disparity and where African Americans comprise a large proportion of the ESRD population. In these regions, the African American-white disparity is an important contributor to their overall regional disparity.

Race remains an important factor in time to transplant waitlist in the United States. Race contributes to overall regional disparities; however, the importance of race varies by UNOS region.

We sought to compare liver transplant waiting list access by demographics and geography relative to the pool of potential liver transplant candidates across the United States using a novel metric of access to care, termed a liver wait-listing ratio (LWR).

We calculated LWRs from national liver transplant registration data and liver mortality data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and the National Center for Healthcare Statistics from 1999 to 2006 to identify variation by diagnosis, demographics, geography, and era.

Among patients with ALF and CLF, African Americans had significantly lower access to the waiting list compared with whites (acute: 0.201 versus 0.280; pre-MELD 0.201 versus 0.290; MELD era: 0.201 versus 0.274; all, P<0.0001) (chronic: 0.084 versus 0.163; pre-MELD 0.085 versus 0.179; MELD 0.084 versus 0.154; all, P<0.0001). Hispanics and whites had similar LWR in both eras (both P>0.05). In the MELD era, female subjects had greater access to the waiting list compared with male subjects (acute: 0.428 versus 0.154; chronic: 0.158 versus 0.140; all, P<0.0001). LWRs varied by three-fold by state (pre-MELD acute: 0.122-0.418, chronic: 0.092-0.247; MELD acute: 0.121-0.428, chronic: 0.092-0.243).

The marked inequity in early access to liver transplantation underscores the need for local and national policy initiatives to affect this disparity.

Our study objective is to measure the survival impact of insurance status following liver transplantation in a cohort of uninsured "charity care" patients. These patients are analogous to the population who will gain insurance via the Affordable Care Act. We hypothesize there will be reduced survival in charity care compared to other insurance strata. We conducted a retrospective study of 898 liver transplants from 2000 to 2010. Insurance cohorts were classified as private (n = 640), public (n = 233) and charity care (n = 23). The 1, 3 and 5-year survival was 92%, 88% and 83% in private insurance, 89%, 80% and 73% in public insurance and 83%, 72% and 51% in charity care. Compared to private insurance, multivariable regression analyses demonstrated charity care (HR 3.11, CI 1.41-6.86) and public insurance (HR 1.58, CI 1.06-2.34) had a higher 5-year mortality hazard ratio. In contrast, other measures of socioeconomic status were not significantly associated with increased mortality. The charity care cohort demonstrated the highest incidence of acute rejection and missed clinic appointments. These data suggest factors other than demographic and socioeconomic may be associated with increased mortality. Further investigations are necessary to determine causative predictors of increased mortality in liver transplant patients without private insurance.

Socioeconomic status influences health outcomes, although its impact on liver transplantation (LT) in children with biliary atresia (BA) is unknown. We hypothesized that governmental insurance [public insurance (PU)], rather than private insurance (PR), would be associated with poorer outcomes for children with BA. Children with BA who underwent first isolated LT between January 2003 and June 2011 were identified from United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Analysis and Research files. We identified 757 patients with PR and 761 patients with PU. The race/ethnicity distribution was significantly different between the groups (65% white, 12% black, and 10% Hispanic in the PR group and 33% white, 26% black, and 29% Hispanic in the PU group, P < 0.01). Wait-list mortality was higher for the PU group versus the PR group [46/1654 (2.7%) versus 29/1895 (1.5%), P < 0.01]. PR patients were older than PU patients at transplant (2.4 ± 4.5 versus 1.5 ± 3.0 years, P < 0.01). The donor types differed between the groups: 165 children (21.8%) in the PR group received living donor grafts, whereas 79 children (10.4%) in the PU group did (P < 0.01). The 1- and 5-year posttransplant patient survival rates were greater for the PR group versus the PU group (98.0% versus 94.1% at 1 year, P < 0.01; 97.8% versus 92.2% at 5 years, P < 0.01). Cox proportional hazards models revealed that the insurance type (PU), the donor type (deceased), and life support were significant risk factors for death. A separate analysis of deceased donor LT revealed that the PU group still had significantly worse patient and graft survival. In conclusion, PU coverage is an independent risk factor for significantly increased wait-list and posttransplant mortality in children with BA. Further studies are needed to unearth the reasons for these important differences in outcomes.

Prior studies have examined the impact of demographic factors on liver transplant outcomes. These factors may be surrogate markers for access to medical care. We investigated physician density in referred patients' hospital service areas (HSAs) as a factor in patients' probability of receiving a liver transplant. We performed a retrospective review of patients referred for liver transplantation from 2002 through 2010. Data on physician density were obtained from the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care. The primary outcome was the receipt of a liver transplant. A Cox hazard analysis was used to control for various demographic and medical covariates. Over the time period, 1485 adult patients were considered for liver transplantation. Factors that influenced the hazard of receiving a liver transplant were the Model for End-Stage Disease (MELD) score at referral {Hazard ratios (HR) per point = 1.11 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.09-1.14]}, a secondary diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma [HR = 2.72 (95% CI = 1.76-4.20)], blood group AB [HR = 2.98 (95% CI = 1.52-5.87) with blood group A as the referent], the type of insurance [HR for Medicare = 0.36 (95% CI = 0.14-0.89) with commercial insurance as the referent], and the number of gastroenterologists in an HSA [odds ratio with each additional gastroenterologist per 100,000 population = 1.12 (95% CI = 1.01-1.25)]. Age, race, sex, distance to the transplant center, and residence in a rural community did not influence the chance of receiving a liver transplant. In conclusion, the hazard of receiving a liver transplant are influenced by the diagnosis, MELD score, and insurance status; in addition, patients were 12% more likely to receive a transplant with each additional gastroenterologist per 100,000 population in their local HSA. Local access to gastroenterology subspecialty care is an important factor in receiving a liver transplant.

There is a paucity of information on the utilization patterns of liver transplantation (LT) for HIV-positive individuals. The aim of this study is to examine the trends in LT of HIV patients in the US. This study was a retrospective analysis using the UNOS database (1999-2008). There were 135 HIV-positive patients. There was a steady increase in the number of LT recipients over time as well as regional variation. Ethnic minorities accounted for 33.3% and there was no ethnic difference in survival. Though LT for HIV-positive patients is on the rise, significant variations exist in patient demographics, geographic location, and insurance payer.

We sought to characterize sex-based differences in access to deceased donor liver transplantation. Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data were used to analyze n = 78 998 adult candidates listed before (8/1997-2/2002) or after (2/2002-2/2007) implementation of Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD)-based liver allocation. The primary outcome was deceased donor liver transplantation. Cox regression was used to estimate covariate-adjusted differences in transplant rates by sex. Females represented 38% of listed patients in the pre-MELD era and 35% in the MELD era. Females had significantly lower covariate-adjusted transplant rates in the pre-MELD era (by 9%; p < 0.0001) and in the MELD era (by 14%; p < 0.0001). In the MELD era, the disparity in transplant rate for females increased as waiting list mortality risk increased, particularly for MELD scores ≥15. Substantial geographic variation in sex-based differences in transplant rates was observed. Some areas of the United States had more than a 30% lower covariate-adjusted transplant rate for females compared to males in the MELD era. In conclusion, the disparity in liver transplant rates between females and males has increased in the MELD era. It is especially troubling that the disparity is magnified among patients with high MELD scores and in certain regions of the United States.

Access to liver transplantation is reportedly inequitable for racial/ethnic minorities, but inadequate adjustments for geography and disease progression preclude any meaningful conclusions. We aimed to evaluate the association between candidate race/ethnicity and liver transplant rates after thorough adjustments for these factors and to determine how uniform racial/ethnic disparities were across Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores. Chronic end-stage liver disease candidates initially wait-listed between February 28, 2002 and February 27, 2007 were identified from Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients data. The primary outcome was deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT); the primary exposure covariate was race/ethnicity (white, African American, Hispanic, Asian, and other). Cox regression was used to estimate the covariate-adjusted DDLT rates by race/ethnicity, which were stratified by the donation service area and MELD score. With averaging across all MELD scores, African Americans, Asians, and others had similar adjusted DDLT rates in comparison with whites. However, Hispanics had an 8% lower DDLT rate versus whites [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.92, P = 0.011]. The disparity among Hispanics was concentrated among patients with MELD scores < 20, with HR = 0.84 (P = 0.021) for MELD scores of 6 to 14 and HR = 0.85 (P = 0.009) for MELD scores of 15 to 19. Asians with MELD scores < 15 had a 24% higher DDLT rate with respect to whites (HR = 1.24, P = 0.024). However, Asians with MELD scores of 30 to 40 had a 46% lower DDLT rate (HR = 0.54, P = 0.004). In conclusion, although African Americans did not have significantly different DDLT rates in comparison with similar white candidates, race/ethnicity-based disparities were prominent among subgroups of Hispanic and Asian candidates. By precluding the survival benefit of liver transplantation, this inequity may lead to excess mortality for minority candidates.

Variation in kidney transplant access across the United States may motivate relocation of patients with ability to travel to better-supplied areas.

We examined national transplant registry and U.S. Census data for kidney transplant candidates listed in 1999 to 2009 with a reported residential zip code (n = 203,267). Cox's regression was used to assess associations of socioeconomic status (SES), distance from residence to transplant center, and relocation to a different donation service area (DSA) with transplant access and outcomes.

Patients in the highest SES quartile had increased access to transplant compared with those with lowest SES, driven strongly by 76% higher likelihood of living donor transplantation (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.70 to 1.83). Waitlist death was reduced in high compared with low SES candidates (aHR 0.86, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.89). High SES patients also experienced lower mortality after living and deceased donor transplant. Patients living farther from the transplant center had reduced access to deceased donor transplant and increased risk of post-transplant death. Inter-DSA travel was associated with a dramatic increase in deceased donor transplant access (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.88 to 2.00) and was predicted by high SES, white race, and longer deceased-donor allograft waiting time in initial DSA.

Ongoing disparities exist in kidney transplantation access and outcomes on the basis of geography and SES despite near-universal insurance coverage under Medicare. Inter-DSA travel improves access and is more common among high SES candidates.

Donor race has been proposed to predict graft failure after liver transplantation. We evaluated the extent to which the center where the transplantation surgery was performed and other potential confounding factors might account for the observed association between donor race and graft failure.

We analyzed data from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (January 2003-December 2005) for adult patients undergoing primary liver transplantation in the United States. We examined the association between graft failure and the donor races of African American (AA), Caucasian, Asian/Pacific Islander (API), or those classified as other.

Of 10,874 livers that were donated for transplantation, 7631 came from Caucasians, 1579 from AAs, 243 from APIs, and 1421 from others. After 36 months of follow-up evaluation, 2687 grafts failed. Without any adjustments, AA donors (hazard ratio [HR], 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.24), API donors (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.12-1.77), and other donors (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04-1.29) were associated with graft failure. After stratification by center and adjustments for age, height, and hepatitis B core antibody status of donors as well as serum creatinine and hepatitis C status of recipients, donor race was no longer statistically significant for AA (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.95-1.20) and API (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.89-1.49) donors. However, livers donated from members of other race still had an increased risk of graft failure (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.05-1.35), although the effect was not uniform across donor-recipient pairs.

Donor race is not a uniform predictor of graft failure and should not be construed as an indicator of donor quality.

In the USA, end-stage liver disease (ESLD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among ethnic minorities. Ethnic populations vary with respect to chronic liver disease prevalence, access to transplantation, and therapeutic outcomes post liver transplantation. These ethnic differences present unique challenges to healthcare professionals involved in the care of patients with chronic liver disease prior and post transplantation. This review will discuss the variations and challenges of liver transplantation in the ethnic minority population.

The effect of demand for kidney transplantation, measured by end-stage renal disease (ESRD) incidence, on access to transplantation is unknown. Using data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (OPTN/SRTR) from 2000 to 2008, we performed donation service area (DSA) and patient-level regression analyses to assess the effect of ESRD incidence on access to the kidney waiting list and deceased donor kidney transplantation. In DSAs, ESRD incidence increased with greater density of high ESRD incidence racial groups (African Americans and Native Americans). Wait-list and transplant rates were relatively lower in high ESRD incidence DSAs, but wait-list rates were not drastically affected by ESRD incidence at the patient level. Compared to low ESRD areas, high ESRD areas were associated with lower adjusted transplant rates among all ESRD patients (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.66-0.70). Patients living in medium and high ESRD areas had lower transplant rates from the waiting list compared to those in low ESRD areas (medium: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.66-0.69; high: RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.61-0.65). Geographic variation in access to kidney transplant is in part mediated by local ESRD incidence, which has implications for allocation policy development.

Factors contributing to inequitable access to liver transplantation include socioeconomic status, geographic location, and delayed referral. The aim of this study is to identify the factors associated with a high MELD at the time of listing. Using the UNOS database, we identified all adults listed from 2002 to 2006. Data collected included demographics, insurance payor (private and government, i.e., Medicaid and non-Medicaid), diagnosis, and MELD score categorized as low (<20) and high (>or=20). The results obtained show that a high MELD was associated with age, ethnicity, and insurance (P < 0.001). By multivariate analysis, insurance (OR = 1.21, 95% CI = 1.13-1.30, P < 0.001) and ethnicity (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.28-1.88, P < 0.001) were independently associated with high MELD. In conclusion, ethnic minorities and liver transplant candidates with Medicaid are more likely to have a high MELD score at initial listing. The above results suggest that the type of insurance and ethnicity are independently associated with a high MELD (i.e., sicker patients).