Improving Broader Sharing to Address Geographic Inequity in Liver Transplantation

Shubham Akshat, Liye Ma, S. Raghavan
{"title":"Improving Broader Sharing to Address Geographic Inequity in Liver Transplantation","authors":"Shubham Akshat, Liye Ma, S. Raghavan","doi":"10.1287/msom.2023.1211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Problem definition: This paper studies the deceased-donor liver allocation policies in the United States. In the transplant community, broader organ sharing is believed to mitigate geographic inequity (intergeographic variation in transplant rates, patient survival rates, waiting times, and offers) in organ access, and recent policies are moving in that direction in principle. The liver-allocation policy has gone through two major modifications in the last 10 years. Despite these overhauls, geographic inequity persists. Methodology/results: In this study, we develop a patient’s dynamic choice model to analyze the patient’s strategic response to a policy change. We use this to evaluate several (existing and proposed) organ-allocation policies. On historical data, we show that our model’s predictions are more precise than the existing liver simulated allocation model. It more accurately captures (1) a patient’s change in organ offer acceptance probability (with their sickness level) and (2) the behavioral change of a patient in terms of organ offer acceptance probability with a change in policy. Next, we study the current acuity circles policy (a one-size-fits-all variant of broader sharing) and conclude that it results in lower efficiency (more offer refusals and a lower transplant benefit) than the previous share 35 policy and performs similarly on geographic equity measures. Finally, we show that broader sharing in its current form may not be the best strategy to balance geographic equity and efficiency. The intuition is that, by indiscriminately enlarging the pool of supply locations from where patients can receive offers, they tend to become more selective, resulting in more offer rejections and less efficiency. We illustrate that a policy that equalizes the supply (deceased donors)-to-demand (waiting list patients) ratios across geographies is better than acuity circles in achieving geographic equity at the lowest trade-off on efficiency metrics. Managerial implications: The key message to policymakers is that they should move away from the one-size-fits-all approach and focus on matching supply and demand to develop organ-allocation policies that score well in terms of efficiency and geographic equity. Supplemental Material: The e-companion is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2023.1211 .","PeriodicalId":119284,"journal":{"name":"Manufacturing & Service Operations Management","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Manufacturing & Service Operations Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2023.1211","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Problem definition: This paper studies the deceased-donor liver allocation policies in the United States. In the transplant community, broader organ sharing is believed to mitigate geographic inequity (intergeographic variation in transplant rates, patient survival rates, waiting times, and offers) in organ access, and recent policies are moving in that direction in principle. The liver-allocation policy has gone through two major modifications in the last 10 years. Despite these overhauls, geographic inequity persists. Methodology/results: In this study, we develop a patient’s dynamic choice model to analyze the patient’s strategic response to a policy change. We use this to evaluate several (existing and proposed) organ-allocation policies. On historical data, we show that our model’s predictions are more precise than the existing liver simulated allocation model. It more accurately captures (1) a patient’s change in organ offer acceptance probability (with their sickness level) and (2) the behavioral change of a patient in terms of organ offer acceptance probability with a change in policy. Next, we study the current acuity circles policy (a one-size-fits-all variant of broader sharing) and conclude that it results in lower efficiency (more offer refusals and a lower transplant benefit) than the previous share 35 policy and performs similarly on geographic equity measures. Finally, we show that broader sharing in its current form may not be the best strategy to balance geographic equity and efficiency. The intuition is that, by indiscriminately enlarging the pool of supply locations from where patients can receive offers, they tend to become more selective, resulting in more offer rejections and less efficiency. We illustrate that a policy that equalizes the supply (deceased donors)-to-demand (waiting list patients) ratios across geographies is better than acuity circles in achieving geographic equity at the lowest trade-off on efficiency metrics. Managerial implications: The key message to policymakers is that they should move away from the one-size-fits-all approach and focus on matching supply and demand to develop organ-allocation policies that score well in terms of efficiency and geographic equity. Supplemental Material: The e-companion is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2023.1211 .
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
改善更广泛的共享以解决肝移植的地域不平等问题
问题定义:本文研究美国已故供肝分配政策。在移植界,更广泛的器官共享被认为可以减轻器官获取方面的地域不平等(移植率、患者存活率、等待时间和服务方面的地域差异),最近的政策原则上正朝着这个方向发展。在过去的十年中,肝脏分配政策经历了两次重大修改。尽管进行了这些改革,但地域不平等仍然存在。方法/结果:在本研究中,我们建立了患者的动态选择模型来分析患者对政策变化的战略反应。我们用它来评估几种(现有的和提议的)器官分配政策。在历史数据上,我们表明我们的模型的预测比现有的肝脏模拟分配模型更精确。它更准确地捕获了(1)患者在器官提供接受概率方面的变化(随其疾病水平)和(2)政策变化时患者在器官提供接受概率方面的行为变化。接下来,我们研究了当前的尖锐圈政策(一种通用的更广泛分享的变体),并得出结论,它比以前的share 35政策导致更低的效率(更多的报价拒绝和更低的移植效益),并且在地理公平措施上表现相似。最后,我们表明,在目前的形式下,更广泛的共享可能不是平衡地域公平和效率的最佳策略。直觉是,通过不加选择地扩大患者可以接受治疗的供应地点池,他们往往会变得更有选择性,导致更多的治疗被拒绝,效率更低。我们的研究表明,在实现地域公平的最低效率衡量标准上,均衡供应(已故捐赠者)与需求(等候名单患者)比率的政策比急性圈更好。管理意义:对政策制定者的关键信息是,他们应该放弃一刀切的方法,把重点放在匹配供需上,以制定在效率和地域公平方面得分较高的器官分配政策。补充材料:电子伴侣可在https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2023.1211上获得。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Physician Adoption of AI Assistant Disclosing Delivery Performance Information When Consumers Are Sensitive to Promised Delivery Time, Delivery Reliability, and Price Loyalty Currency and Mental Accounting: Do Consumers Treat Points Like Money? Dealership or Marketplace with Fulfillment Services: A Dynamic Comparison Introduction: Frontiers in Operations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1