OrganJet: Overcoming Geographical Disparities in Access to Deceased Donor Kidneys in the United States

References

• Ahn J, Hornberger JC (1996) Involving patients in the cadaveric kidney transplant allocation process: A decision-theoretic perspective. Management Sci. 42(5):629–641.Link, Google Scholar
• Akan M, Alagoz O, Ata B, Erenay FS, Said A (2012) A broader view of the liver allocation system incorporating disease evolution. Oper. Res. 60(4):757–770.Link, Google Scholar
• Alagoz O, Maillart LM, Schaefer AJ, Roberts MS (2004) The optimal timing of living-donor liver transplantation. Management Sci. 50(10):1420–1430.Link, Google Scholar
• Alagoz O, Maillart LM, Schaefer AJ, Roberts MS (2007a) Choosing among living-donor and cadaveric livers. Management Sci. 53(11):1702–1715.Link, Google Scholar
• Alagoz O, Maillart LM, Schaefer AJ, Roberts MS (2007b) Determining the acceptance of cadaveric livers using an implicit model of the waiting list. Oper. Res. 55(1):24–36.Link, Google Scholar
• Ardekani MS, Orlowski JM (2010) Multiple listing in kidney transplantation. Amer. J. Kidney Diseases 55(4):717–725.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arikan M, Ata B, Parker R (2012) What drives the geographical differences in deceased-donor organ procurement in the US? Working paper, University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
• Ashlagi I, Roth AE (2012) New challenges in multihospital kidney exchange. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(3):354–359.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ata B, Kumar S (2005) Heavy traffic analysis of open processing networks with complete resource pooling: Asymptotic optimality of discrete review policies. Ann. Appl. Probab. 15(2):331–390.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ata B, Ding Y, Zenios SA (2014) Donor dependent schemes for kidney allocation. Working paper, University of Chicago, Chicago.Google Scholar
• Bertsimas D, Farias VF, Trichakis N (2013) Fairness, efficiency, and flexibility in organ allocation for kidney transplantation. Oper. Res. 61(1):73–87.Link, Google Scholar
• Bruce G (2014) KU Hospital opposes changes to the way transplant livers are distributed. LJWorld (September 1), http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2014/sep/01/ku-hospital-opposes-changes-way-transplant-livers-/.Google Scholar
• Caldentey R, Kaplan E, Weiss G (2009) FCFS infinite bipartite matching of servers and customers. Adv. Appl. Probab. 41:695–730.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Candogan O, Ozdaglar A, Parrilo P (2013) Near-potential games: Geometry and dynamics. Trans. Econom. Computation 1(2):Article 11.Google Scholar
• Candogan O, Menache I, Ozdaglar A, Parrilo P (2011) Flow and decompositions of games: Harmonic and potential games. Math Oper. Res. 36(3):474–503.Link, Google Scholar
• Christensen J (2014) Fight brewing over liver donation. CNN (September 3), http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/health/liver-transplant-fight/.Google Scholar
• Clark CE (1961) The greatest of a finite set of random variables. Oper. Res. 9(2):145–162.Link, Google Scholar
• CONSAD Research Corporation (1995) An Analysis of Alternative National Policies for Allocating Donor Livers for Transplantation (CONSAD Research Corporation, Pittsburgh).Google Scholar
• Cramér H (1946) Mathematical Methods of Statistics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• David I (1995) A sequential assignment match process with general renewal arrival times. Probab. Engrg. Informational Sci. 9(3):475–492.Crossref, Google Scholar
• David I, Yechiali U (1990) Sequential assignment match processes with arrivals of candidates and offers. Probab. Engrg. Informational Sci. 4(4):413–430.Crossref, Google Scholar
• David I, Yechiali U (1995) One-attribute sequential assignment match processes in discrete time. Oper. Res. 43(5):879–884.Link, Google Scholar
• Davis A (2011) Addressing geographic inequities in kidney transplantation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
• Department of Health and Human Services (1998) Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. Final rule (42 C.F.R. 121). Federal Register 63:16296–16338.Google Scholar
• Guo P, Ata B (2012) Personal communication, conference in New York City.Google Scholar
• Guo P, Hassin R (2015) Equilibrium and optimal strategies for placing duplicate orders in queues. Oper. Res. Lett. 43(3):343–348.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison JM, Lopez MJ (1999) Heavy traffic resource pooling in parallel-server systems. Queueing Systems 33(4):339–368.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hornberger JC, Ahn J (1997) Deciding eligibility for transplantation when a donor kidney becomes available. Medical Decision Making 17(2):160–170.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Howard DH (2002) Why do transplant surgeons turn down organs?: A model of the accept/reject decision. J. Health Econom. 21(6):957–969.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Isaacson W (2011) Steve Jobs (Simon & Schuster, New York).Google Scholar
• Jennings OB, Reed JE (2012) An overloaded multiclass FIFO queue with abandonments. Oper. Res. 60(5):1282–1295.Link, Google Scholar
• Kaplan EH (1984) Managing the demand for public housing. Technical Report 183, MIT Operations Research Center, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Kaplan EH (1985) How PHA’s fill their units. J. Housing 42(1):13–20.Google Scholar
• Kaplan EH (1986) Tenant assignment models. Oper. Res. 34(6):832–843.Link, Google Scholar
• Kaplan EH (1988) A public housing queue with reneging and task-specific servers. Decision Sci. 19(2):382–391.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kohn R, Kratz JR, Markmann JF, Vagefi PA (2014) The migrated liver transplantation candidate: Insight into geographic disparities in liver distribution. J. Amer. College of Surgeons 218(6):1113–1118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kong N, Schaefer AJ, Hunsaker B, Roberts MS (2010) Maximizing the efficiency of the U.S. liver allocation system through region design. Management Sci. 56(12):2111–2122.Link, Google Scholar
• Kreke J, Schaefer A, Angus D, Bryce C, Roberts M (2002) Incorporating biology into discrete event simulation models of organ allocation. Yucesan E, Chen CH, Snowdon JL, Charnes JM, eds. Proc. 34th Conf. Winter Simulation (IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC), 532–536.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee CP, Chertow GM, Zenios SA (2009) An empiric estimate of the value of life: Updating the renal dialysis cost-effectiveness standard. Value in Health 12(1):80–87.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lorenz M (1905) Methods of measuring concentration of wealth. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 9:209–219.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mas-Colell A (1984) On a theorem of Schmeidler. J. Math. Econom. 13(3):201–206.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Merion RM, Guidinger MK, Newmann JM, Ellison MD, Port FK, Wolfe RA (2004) Prevalence and outcomes of multiple-listing for cadaveric kidney and liver transplantation. Amer. J. Transplantation 4(1):94–100.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Neidich E, Neidich AB, Axelrod DA, Roberts JP (2013) Consumerist responses to scarcity of organs for transplant. Amer. Medical Assoc. J. Ethics Virtual Mentor 15(11):966–972.Google Scholar
• Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (2011) Allocation of deceased kidneys. Accessed July 8, 2016, http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/PoliciesandBylaws2/policies/pdfs/policy_7.pdf.Google Scholar
• Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (2014) Redesigning liver distribution to reduce variation in access to liver transplantation. Accessed July 8, 2016, https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/learn/professional-education/kidney-allocation-system/.Google Scholar
• Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (2016a) Kidney Allocation System. Accessed July 8, 2016, https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/learn/professional-education/kidney-allocation-system/.Google Scholar
• Organ Procurement Transplantation Network (2016b) OPTN policies. Accessed July 8, 2016, https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/media/1200/optn_policies.pdf#nameddest=Policy_08.Google Scholar
• Parlakturk AK, Kumar S (2004) Self-interested routing in queueing networks. Management Sci. 50(7):949–966.Link, Google Scholar
• Port FK, Held P, Wolfe R, Garcia J, Rocher L (1991) The impact of nonidentical ABO cadaveric renal transplantation on waiting times and graft survival. Amer. J. Kidney Disease 17(5):519–523.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pritsker AA, Martin DL, Reust JS, Wagner MA, Daily OP, Harper AM, Edwards EBet al. (1995) Organ transplantation policy evaluation. Alexopoloulos C, Kang K, Lilegdon WR, Goldsman D, eds. Proc. 27th Conf. Winter Simulation (IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC), 1314–1323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Righter R (1989) A resource allocation problem in a random environment. Oper. Res. 37(2):329–338.Link, Google Scholar
• Roth AE, Sönmez T, Ünver MU (2005) Pairwise kidney exchange. J. Econom. Theory 125(2):151–188.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roth AE, Sönmez T, Ünver MU (2007) Efficient kidney exchange: Coincidence of wants in markets with compatibility-based preferences. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97(3):828–851.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roughgarden T (2002) Selfish routing. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
• Roughgarden T (2007) Nisan N, Roughgarden T, Tardos É, Vazirani V, eds. Algorithmic Game Theory, Chap. 18 (Cambridge University Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Sandıkçi B, Maillart LM, Schaefer AJ, Roberts MS (2013) Alleviating the patient’s price of privacy through a partially observable waiting list. Management Sci. 59(8):1836–1854.Link, Google Scholar
• Sandıkçi B, Maillart LM, Schaefer AJ, Alagoz O, Roberts MS (2008) Estimating the patient’s price of privacy in liver transplantation. Oper. Res. 56(6):1393–1410.Link, Google Scholar
• Schmeidler D (1973) Equilibrium points of nonatomic games. J. Statist. Phys. 7(4):295–300.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shah NB, Lee K, Romchanduan K (2014) The MDS queue: Analyzing latency performance of codes and redundant requests. Working paper, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
• Shechter SM, Bryce CL, Alagoz O, Kreke JE, Stahl JE, Schaefer AJ, Angus DC, Roberts MS (2005) A clinically based discrete-event simulation of end-stage liver disease and the organ allocation process. Medical Decision Making 25(2):199–209.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stahl JE, Kong N, Shechter SM, Schaefer AJ, Roberts MS (2005) A methodological framework for optimally reorganizing liver transplant regions. Medical Decision Making 25(1):35–46.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Su X, Zenios S (2004) Patient choice in kidney allocation: The role of the queueing discipline. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 6(4):280–301.Link, Google Scholar
• Su X, Zenios SA (2005) Patient choice in kidney allocation: A sequential stochastic assignment model. Oper. Res. 53(3):443–455.Link, Google Scholar
• Su X, Zenios SA (2006) Recipient choice can address the efficiency-equity trade-off in kidney transplantation: A mechanism design model. Management Sci. 52(11):1647–1660.Link, Google Scholar
• Talreja R, Whitt W (2008) Fluid models for overloaded multiclass many-server queueing systems with first-come, first-served routing. Management Sci. 54(8):1513–1527.Link, Google Scholar
• Taranto SE, Harper AM, Edwards EB, Rosendale JD, McBride MA, Daily OP, Murphy D, Poos B, Reust J, Schmeiser B (2000) Developing a national allocation model for cadaveric kidneys. Joines JA, Barton RR, Kang K, FishWick PA, eds. Proc. 32nd Conf. Winter Simulation (IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC), 1971–1977.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vagefi PA, Feng S, Dodge JL, Markmann JF, Roberts JP (2014) Multiple listings as a reflection of geographic disparity in liver transplantation. J. Amer. College of Surgeons 219(3):496–504.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Washburn K, Pomfret E, Roberts J (2011) Liver allocation and distribution: Possible next steps. Liver Transplantation 17(9):1005–1012.Google Scholar
• Yeh H, Smoot E, Schoenfeld DA, Markmann JF (2011) Geographic inequity in access to livers for transplantation. Transplantation 91(4):479–486.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zenios SA (2002) Optimal control of a paired-kidney exchange program. Management Sci. 48(3):328–342.Link, Google Scholar
• Zenios SA, Chertow GM, Wein LM (2000) Dynamic allocation of kidneys to candidates on the transplant waiting list. Oper. Res. 48(4):549–569.Link, Google Scholar
• Zenios SA, Wein LM, Chertow GM (1999) Evidence-based organ allocation. Amer. J. Medicine 107(1):52–61.Crossref, Google Scholar