IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormsom/v25y2023i4p1509-1526.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving Broader Sharing to Address Geographic Inequity in Liver Transplantation

Author

Listed:
  • Shubham Akshat

    (Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213)

  • Liye Ma

    (The Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742)

  • S. Raghavan

    (The Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742; Institute for Systems Research, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Shubham Akshat & Liye Ma & S. Raghavan, 2023. "Improving Broader Sharing to Address Geographic Inequity in Liver Transplantation," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 1509-1526, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormsom:v:25:y:2023:i:4:p:1509-1526
    DOI: 10.1287/msom.2023.1211
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/msom.2023.1211
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/msom.2023.1211?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormsom:v:25:y:2023:i:4:p:1509-1526. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.