IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormsom/v6y2004i4p280-301.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient Choice in Kidney Allocation: The Role of the Queueing Discipline

Author

Listed:
  • Xuanming Su

    () (Walter A. Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720)

  • Stefanos Zenios

    () (Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305)

Abstract

This paper develops and analyzes a queueing model to examine the role of patient choice on the high rate of organ refusals in the kidney transplant waiting system. The model is an M/M/1 queue with homogeneous patients and exponential reneging. Patients join the waiting system and organ transplants are reflected by the service process. In addition, unlike the standard M/M/1 model, each service instance is associated with a variable reward that reflects the quality of the transplant organ, and patients have the option to refuse an organ (service) offer if they expect future offers to be better. Under an assumption of perfect and complete information, it is demonstrated that the queueing discipline is a potent instrument that can be used to maximize social welfare. In particular, first-come-first-serve (FCFS) amplifies patients' desire to refuse offers of marginal quality, and generates excessive organ wastage. By contrast, last-come-first-serve (LCFS) contains the inefficiencies engendered by patient choice and achieves optimal organ utilization. A numerical example calibrated using data from the U.S. transplantation system demonstrates that the welfare improvements possible from a better control of patient choice are equivalent to a 25% increase in the supply of organs.

Suggested Citation

  • Xuanming Su & Stefanos Zenios, 2004. "Patient Choice in Kidney Allocation: The Role of the Queueing Discipline," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 6(4), pages 280-301, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormsom:v:6:y:2004:i:4:p:280-301
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/msom.1040.0056
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Smith, Peter C. & van Ackere, Ann, 2002. "A note on the integration of system dynamics and economic models," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 1-10, January.
    2. Colin E. Bell & Shaler Stidham, Jr., 1983. "Individual versus Social Optimization in the Allocation of Customers to Alternative Servers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(7), pages 831-839, July.
    3. Naor, P, 1969. "The Regulation of Queue Size by Levying Tolls," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 37(1), pages 15-24, January.
    4. Edward H. Kaplan, 1987. "Analyzing Tenant Assignment Policies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(3), pages 395-408, March.
    5. Iversen, Tor, 1997. "The effect of a private sector on the waiting time in a national health service," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 381-396, August.
    6. Jan A. Van Mieghem, 2000. "Price and Service Discrimination in Queuing Systems: Incentive Compatibility of Gc\mu Scheduling," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(9), pages 1249-1267, September.
    7. Roger Feldman & Felix Lobo, 1997. "Global Budgets and Excess Demand for Hospital Care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(2), pages 187-196.
    8. Hassin, Refael, 1985. "On the Optimality of First Come Last Served Queues," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(1), pages 201-202, January.
    9. A. J. Culyer & J. P. Newhouse (ed.), 2000. "Handbook of Health Economics," Handbook of Health Economics, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:pal:jorsoc:v:60:y:2009:i:4:d:10.1057_palgrave.jors.2602587 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Caulkins, Jonathan P., 2010. "Might randomization in queue discipline be useful when waiting cost is a concave function of waiting time?," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 19-24, March.
    3. Bendersky, Michael & David, Israel, 2016. "Deciding kidney-offer admissibility dependent on patients’ lifetime failure rate," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(2), pages 686-693.
    4. Juanjuan Zhang, 2010. "The Sound of Silence: Observational Learning in the U.S. Kidney Market," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 315-335, 03-04.
    5. Francis Bloch & David Cantala, 2017. "Dynamic Assignment of Objects to Queuing Agents," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(1), pages 88-122, February.
    6. Fermín Mallor & Cristina Azcárate & Julio Barado, 2015. "Optimal control of ICU patient discharge: from theory to implementation," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 234-250, September.
    7. Murat Kurt & Mark S. Roberts & Andrew J. Schaefer & M. Utku Ünver, 2011. "Valuing Prearranged Paired Kidney Exchanges: A Stochastic Game Approach," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 785, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 14 Oct 2011.
    8. R. K. Jha & B. S. Sahay & P. Charan, 2016. "Healthcare operations management: a structured literature review," DECISION: Official Journal of the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Springer;Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, vol. 43(3), pages 259-279, September.
    9. Senthil Veeraraghavan & Laurens Debo, 2009. "Joining Longer Queues: Information Externalities in Queue Choice," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 543-562, April.
    10. Dimitris Bertsimas & Vivek F. Farias & Nikolaos Trichakis, 2012. "On the Efficiency-Fairness Trade-off," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(12), pages 2234-2250, December.
    11. repec:eee:ejores:v:265:y:2018:i:1:p:169-177 is not listed on IDEAS

    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:6:y:2004:i:4:p:280-301. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.