Article

American Society of Transplant Surgeons transplant center outcomes requirements--a threat to innovation.

Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
American Journal of Transplantation (Impact Factor: 6.19). 05/2009; 9(6):1279-86. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2009.02606.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The transplant center regulations recently published by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) mandate that observed program-specific survival outcomes to fall within expected risk-adjusted outcomes. Meeting these outcomes is essential to continued participation in the Medicare program. Both donor and recipient variables not considered in current risk adjustment models can result in inferior outcomes and therefore may cause an overestimation of transplant center expected performance, precluding participation in the federally funded Medicare program. We reviewed the most recent four reporting periods published by the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients on their public website. We identified kidney, liver and heart transplant programs that were flagged for having outcomes statistically lower than expected as well as those that failed to meet CMS criteria. We also analyzed whether center volumes correlated with outcomes in these centers. We highlight the need for mitigating factors that could justify inferior outcomes under specific circumstances. Failure to reach consensus on such a mechanism for appeal may result in risk-averse behavior by transplant centers with respect to innovation and therefore hamper the ability to advance the field of transplantation. We propose a methodology that may address this emerging dilemma.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
57 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The recent CMS conditions of participation are based on risk-adjusted models produced by the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients (SRTR). The accuracy of these models in identifying poor-performing centers is unknown. In this stochastic simulation study, 1-year mortality outcomes were simulated in virtual transplant centers, and used to flag centers according to the methods used by CMS, evaluating nine overlapping 2.5-year periods of simulated data. In a simulation where all centers had the same underlying risk, 10.2% were falsely flagged at least once during the 4.5 years of simulated evaluations. The probability of false-positive flagging was lowest in low-volume centers (2.5%) and highest in high-volume centers (16.2%). In another simulation where 5% of centers were assigned twofold risk ("poor-performing centers"), only 32% of poor-performing centers were correctly flagged. In a final simulation where each center was assigned a unique mortality risk, 94% of flagged centers had greater-than-median risk, but only 32% of flagged centers were among the 5% with highest risk. Even after disregarding known covariate limitations to the risk adjustment models, statistical noise alone leads to spurious flagging of many adequately-performing transplant centers, yet the methods used by CMS fail to flag most centers with true elevated risk.
    American Journal of Transplantation 08/2013; 13(8):2044-51. · 6.19 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective To evaluate evidence of practice changes affecting kidney transplant program volumes, and donor, recipient and candidate selection in the era surrounding the introduction of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) conditions of participation (CoPs) for organ transplant programs.DataScientific Registry of Transplant Recipients; CMS ESRD and Medicare claims databases.DesignRetrospective analysis of national registry data.MethodsA Cox proportional hazards model of 1-year graft survival was used to derive risks associated with deceased-donor kidney transplants performed from 2001 to 2010.FindingsAmong programs with ongoing noncompliance with the CoPs, kidney transplant volumes declined by 38 percent (n = 766) from 2006 to 2011, including a 55 percent drop in expanded criteria donor transplants. Volume increased by 6 percent (n = 638) among programs remaining in compliance. Aggregate risk of 1-year graft failure increased over time due to increasing recipient age and obesity, and longer ESRD duration.Conclusions Although trends in aggregate risk of 1-year kidney graft loss do not indicate that the introduction of the CoPs has systematically reduced opportunities for marginal candidates or that there has been a systematic shift away from utilization of higher risk deceased donor kidneys, total volume and expanded criteria donor utilization decreased overall among programs with ongoing noncompliance.
    Health Services Research 05/2014; · 2.29 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The hospital at which liver transplantation (LT) is performed has a substantial impact on post-LT outcomes. Center-specific outcome data are closely monitored not only by the centers themselves but also by patients and government regulatory agencies. However, the true magnitude of this center effect, apart from the effects of the region and donor service area (DSA) as well as recipient and donor determinants of graft survival, has not been examined. We analyzed data submitted to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network for all adult (age ≥ 18 years) primary LT recipients (2005-2008). Using a mixed effects, proportional hazards regression analysis, we modeled graft failure within 1 year after LT on the basis of center (de-identified), region, DSA, and donor and recipient characteristics. At 115 unique centers, 14,654 recipients underwent transplantation. Rates of graft loss within a year varied from 5.9% for the lowest quartile of centers to 20.2% for the highest quartile. Gauged by a comparison of the 75th and 25th percentiles of the data, the magnitude of the center effect on graft survival (1.49-fold change) was similar to that of the recipient Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (1.47) and the donor risk index (DRI; 1.45). The center effect was similar across the DRI and MELD score quartiles and was not associated with a center's annual LT volume. After stratification by region and DSA, the magnitude of the center effect, though decreased, remained significant and substantial (1.30-fold interquartile difference). In conclusion, the LT center is a significant predictor of graft failure that is independent of region and DSA as well as donor and recipient characteristics. Liver Transpl, 2013. © 2013 AASLD.
    Liver Transplantation 06/2013; · 3.94 Impact Factor