IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orserv/v17y2025i1p1-17.html

Dynamic Exception Points for Fair Liver Allocation

Author

Listed:
  • Musa Eren Celdir

    (Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15217)

  • Mustafa Akan

    (Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15217)

  • Sridhar Tayur

    (Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15217)

Abstract

There are disparities in access to livers based on transplant patients’ height, which disproportionately affects Hispanics, Asians, and women (across all ethnicities), because short patients can receive transplants from a smaller pool of available deceased donors for medical reasons. Reduced likelihood of transplantation leads to higher mortality rates and longer waiting times. We analyze fairness within the current U.S. liver allocation system where patients receive priority dynamically, based on their model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores, which reflect the severity of liver disease. We propose a simple adjustment, providing additional (exception) points based on height and MELD score, that can be easily implemented in practice, which materially reduces the disparity without sacrificing overall efficiency. We model the liver allocation system as a multiclass fluid model of overloaded queues with heterogeneous servers. We impose explicit equity constraints for all static patient classes, that is, height. We characterize the optimal solution under the objective of minimizing pretransplant mortality. The discretized version of the optimal policy is numerically solved using estimates from clinical data and a detailed simulation study demonstrates its effectiveness. The optimal policy, called the equity adjusted mortality risk policy, advocates ranking patients based on their short-term mortality risk adjusted for equity among height classes. Interpretation of the shadow prices of equity constraints in the optimal control problem as MELD exception points is novel in the transplant context since they can be seamlessly mapped into the existing system. Our simulations show that for women, the disparity can be almost completely eliminated. Hispanics and Asians greatly benefit from receiving these MELD exception points also. Our work provides a remedy to reduce the disparities in access to liver transplantation within the MELD-based allocation. Our approach can help the on-going analysis of the continuous distribution model for livers because it also considers aspects of candidate biology, notably height and body surface area.

Suggested Citation

  • Musa Eren Celdir & Mustafa Akan & Sridhar Tayur, 2025. "Dynamic Exception Points for Fair Liver Allocation," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 1-17, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:orserv:v:17:y:2025:i:1:p:1-17
    DOI: 10.1287/serv.2023.0092
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/serv.2023.0092
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/serv.2023.0092?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steven M. Shechter & Cindy L. Bryce & Oguzhan Alagoz & Jennifer E. Kreke & James E. Stahl & Andrew J. Schaefer & Derek C. Angus & Mark S. Roberts, 2005. "A Clinically Based Discrete-Event Simulation of End-Stage Liver Disease and the Organ Allocation Process," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(2), pages 199-209, March.
    2. Stefanos A. Zenios & Glenn M. Chertow & Lawrence M. Wein, 2000. "Dynamic Allocation of Kidneys to Candidates on the Transplant Waiting List," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 48(4), pages 549-569, August.
    3. Nan Kong & Andrew J. Schaefer & Brady Hunsaker & Mark S. Roberts, 2010. "Maximizing the Efficiency of the U.S. Liver Allocation System Through Region Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(12), pages 2111-2122, December.
    4. Jae-Hyeon Ahn & John C. Hornberger, 1996. "Involving Patients in the Cadaveric Kidney Transplant Allocation Process: A Decision-Theoretic Perspective," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(5), pages 629-641, May.
    5. Rhonda Righter, 1989. "A Resource Allocation Problem in a Random Environment," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 37(2), pages 329-338, April.
    6. Barış Ata & Anton Skaro & Sridhar Tayur, 2017. "OrganJet: Overcoming Geographical Disparities in Access to Deceased Donor Kidneys in the United States," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(9), pages 2776-2794, September.
    7. Sang-Phil Kim & Diwakar Gupta & Ajay Israni & Bertram Kasiske, 2015. "Accept/decline decision module for the liver simulated allocation model," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 35-57, March.
    8. 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.
    9. Burhaneddin Sandıkçı & Lisa M. Maillart & Andrew J. Schaefer & Oguzhan Alagoz & Mark S. Roberts, 2008. "Estimating the Patient's Price of Privacy in Liver Transplantation," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(6), pages 1393-1410, December.
    10. Oguzhan Alagoz & Lisa M. Maillart & Andrew J. Schaefer & Mark S. Roberts, 2007. "Choosing Among Living-Donor and Cadaveric Livers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(11), pages 1702-1715, November.
    11. Xuanming Su & Stefanos A. Zenios, 2005. "Patient Choice in Kidney Allocation: A Sequential Stochastic Assignment Model," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 443-455, June.
    12. Tinglong Dai & Ronghuo Zheng & Katia Sycara, 2020. "Jumping the Line, Charitably: Analysis and Remedy of Donor-Priority Rule," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(2), pages 622-641, February.
    13. Mohammadreza Nazari & Alexander L. Stolyar, 2019. "Reward maximization in general dynamic matching systems," Queueing Systems: Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 91(1), pages 143-170, February.
    14. R. Jean Ruth & Leon Wyszewianski & Gary Herline, 1985. "Kidney Transplantation: A Simulation Model for Examining Demand and Supply," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(5), pages 515-526, May.
    15. Xuanming Su & Stefanos A. Zenios, 2006. "Recipient Choice Can Address the Efficiency-Equity Trade-off in Kidney Transplantation: A Mechanism Design Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(11), pages 1647-1660, November.
    16. Dimitris Bertsimas & Vivek F. Farias & Nikolaos Trichakis, 2013. "Fairness, Efficiency, and Flexibility in Organ Allocation for Kidney Transplantation," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(1), pages 73-87, February.
    17. Oguzhan Alagoz & Lisa M. Maillart & Andrew J. Schaefer & Mark S. Roberts, 2004. "The Optimal Timing of Living-Donor Liver Transplantation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(10), pages 1420-1430, October.
    18. Israel David & Uri Yechiali, 1985. "A Time-dependent Stopping Problem with Application to Live Organ Transplants," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(3), pages 491-504, June.
    19. Howard, David H., 2002. "Why do transplant surgeons turn down organs?: A model of the accept/reject decision," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 957-969, November.
    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. Yanhan (Savannah) Tang & Alan Scheller-Wolf & Sridhar Tayur & Emily R. Perito & John P. Roberts, 2025. "Split Liver Transplantation: An Analytical Decision Support Model," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 73(4), pages 1785-1804, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Barış Ata & Anton Skaro & Sridhar Tayur, 2017. "OrganJet: Overcoming Geographical Disparities in Access to Deceased Donor Kidneys in the United States," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(9), pages 2776-2794, September.
    2. Ozge Ceren Ersoy & Diwakar Gupta & Timothy Pruett, 2021. "A critical look at the U.S. deceased‐donor organ procurement and utilization system," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 68(1), pages 3-29, February.
    3. Dimitris Bertsimas & Vivek F. Farias & Nikolaos Trichakis, 2013. "Fairness, Efficiency, and Flexibility in Organ Allocation for Kidney Transplantation," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(1), pages 73-87, February.
    4. Mustafa Akan & Oguzhan Alagoz & Baris Ata & Fatih Safa Erenay & Adnan Said, 2012. "A Broader View of Designing the Liver Allocation System," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 60(4), pages 757-770, August.
    5. Kargar, Bahareh & Pishvaee, Mir Saman & Jahani, Hamed & Sheu, Jiuh-Biing, 2020. "Organ transportation and allocation problem under medical uncertainty: A real case study of liver transplantation," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    6. Burhaneddin Sandıkçı & Lisa M. Maillart & Andrew J. Schaefer & Oguzhan Alagoz & Mark S. Roberts, 2008. "Estimating the Patient's Price of Privacy in Liver Transplantation," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(6), pages 1393-1410, December.
    7. Sakine Batun & Andrew J. Schaefer & Atul Bhandari & Mark S. Roberts, 2018. "Optimal Liver Acceptance for Risk-Sensitive Patients," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(3), pages 320-333, September.
    8. Sait Tunç & Burhaneddin Sandıkçı & Bekir Tanrıöver, 2022. "A Simple Incentive Mechanism to Alleviate the Burden of Organ Wastage in Transplantation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(8), pages 5980-6002, August.
    9. 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.
    10. Sahar Ahmadvand & Mir Saman Pishvaee, 2018. "An efficient method for kidney allocation problem: a credibility-based fuzzy common weights data envelopment analysis approach," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 587-603, December.
    11. Zahra Gharibi & Michael Hahsler, 2021. "A Simulation-Based Optimization Model to Study the Impact of Multiple-Region Listing and Information Sharing on Kidney Transplant Outcomes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-20, January.
    12. Sepehr Nemati & Zeynep G. Icten & Lisa M. Maillart & Andrew J. Schaefer, 2020. "Mitigating Information Asymmetry in Liver Allocation," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 32(2), pages 234-248, April.
    13. Oguzhan Alagoz & Lisa M. Maillart & Andrew J. Schaefer & Mark S. Roberts, 2007. "Choosing Among Living-Donor and Cadaveric Livers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(11), pages 1702-1715, November.
    14. Burhaneddin Sandıkçı & Lisa M. Maillart & Andrew J. Schaefer & Mark S. Roberts, 2013. "Alleviating the Patient's Price of Privacy Through a Partially Observable Waiting List," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(8), pages 1836-1854, August.
    15. Oguzhan Alagoz & Lisa M. Maillart & Andrew J. Schaefer & Mark S. Roberts, 2007. "Determining the Acceptance of Cadaveric Livers Using an Implicit Model of the Waiting List," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 55(1), pages 24-36, February.
    16. Farhad Hamidzadeh & Mir Saman Pishvaee & Naeme Zarrinpoor, 2024. "A novel two-stage network data envelopment analysis model for kidney allocation problem under medical and logistical uncertainty: a real case study," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 555-579, December.
    17. Baris Ata & Yichuan Ding & Stefanos Zenios, 2021. "An Achievable-Region-Based Approach for Kidney Allocation Policy Design with Endogenous Patient Choice," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 36-54, 1-2.
    18. Tinglong Dai & Ronghuo Zheng & Katia Sycara, 2020. "Jumping the Line, Charitably: Analysis and Remedy of Donor-Priority Rule," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(2), pages 622-641, February.
    19. Li, Mengling & Riyanto, Yohanes E. & Xu, Menghan, 2022. "Remedying adverse selection in donor-priority rule using freeze period: Theory and experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 384-407.
    20. Li, Mengling & Riyanto, Yohanes E. & Xu, Menghan, 2023. "Prioritized organ allocation rules under compatibility constraints," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 403-427.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:orserv:v:17:y:2025:i:1:p:1-17. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    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.