Improving Broader Sharing to Address Geographic Inequity in Liver Transplantation

References

• Agarwal N, Ashlagi I, Rees M, Somaini P, Waldinger D (2021) Equilibrium allocations under alternative waitlist designs: Evidence from deceased donor kidneys. Econometrica 89(1):37–76.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Akshat S, Gentry SE, Raghavan S (2023) Heterogeneous donor circles for fair liver transplant allocation. Health Care Management Sci. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
• Alagoz O, Maillart LM, Schaefer AJ, Roberts MS (2007) Determining the acceptance of cadaveric livers using an implicit model of the waiting list. Oper. Res. 55(1):24–36.Link, Google Scholar
• Arikan M, Ata B, Friedewald JJ, Parker RP (2018) Enhancing kidney supply through geographic sharing in the United States. Production Oper. Management 27(12):2103–2121.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ata B, Friedewald J, Randa AC (2023) Structural estimation of kidney transplant candidates’ quality of life scores: Improving national kidney allocation policy under endogenous patient choice and geographical sharing. Working paper, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
• Ata B, Skaro A, Tayur S (2017) Organjet: Overcoming geographical disparities in access to deceased donor kidneys in the United States. Management Sci. 63(9):2776–2794.Link, Google Scholar
• Atkinson AB (1970) On the measurement of inequality. J. Econom. Theory 2(3):244–263.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bertsimas D, Farias VF, Trichakis N (2012) On the efficiency-fairness trade-off. Management Sci. 58(12):2234–2250.Link, 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
• Bertsimas D, Papalexopoulos T, Trichakis N, Wang Y, Hirose R, Vagefi PA (2020) Balancing efficiency and fairness in liver transplant access: Tradeoff curves for the assessment of organ distribution policies. Transplantation 104(5):981–987.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Demirci MC, Schaefer AJ, Romeijn HE, Roberts MS (2012) An exact method for balancing efficiency and equity in the liver allocation hierarchy. INFORMS J. Comput. 24(2):260–275.Link, Google Scholar
• Department of Health and Human Services (1998) Organ procurement and transplantation network; (42 CFR Part 121). Federal Register 63(63):16296–16338.Google Scholar
• Feng S, Goodrich NP, Bragg-Gresham JL, Dykstra DM, Punch JD, DebRoy MA, Greenstein SM, Merion RM (2006) Characteristics associated with liver graft failure: The concept of a donor risk index. Amer. J. Transplantation 6(4):783–790.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Freeman RB, Wiesner RH, Harper A, McDiarmid SV, Lake J, Edwards E, Merion R, Wolfe R, Turcotte J, Teperman L (2002) The new liver allocation system: Moving toward evidence based transplantation policy. Liver Transplantation 8(9):851–858.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garfinkel RS, Nemhauser GL (1970) Optimal political districting by implicit enumeration techniques. Management Sci. 16(8):B495–B508.Link, Google Scholar
• Gentry SE, Chow EK, Massie AB, Segev DL (2015) Gerrymandering for justice: Redistricting U.S. liver allocation. Interfaces 45(5):462–480.Link, Google Scholar
• Gentry SE, Chow EK, Wickliffe CE, Massie AB, Leighton T, Segev DL (2014) Impact of broader sharing on transport time for deceased donor livers. Liver Transplantation 20(10):1237–1243.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goel A, Kim WR, Pyke J, Schladt DP, Kasiske BL, Snyder JJ, Lake JR, Israni AK (2018) Liver simulated allocation modeling: Were the predictions accurate for share 35? Transplantation 102(5):769–774.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goldberg DS, Levine M, Karp S, Gilroy R, Abt PL (2017) Share 35 changes center level liver acceptance practices. Liver Transplantation 23(5):604–613.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gowrisankaran G, Rysman M (2012) Dynamics of consumer demand for new durable goods. J. Political Econom. 120(6):1173–1219.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hess SW, Weaver JB, Whelan JN, Zitlau PA (1965) Nonpartisan political redistricting by computer. Oper. Res. 13(6):998–1006.Link, Google Scholar
• Hughes CB (2015) The history of trying to fix liver allocation: Why a consensus approach will never work. Clinical Transplantation 29(6):477–483.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kilambi V, Mehrotra S (2017) Improving liver allocation using optimized neighborhoods. Transplantation 101(2):350–359.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee CY, Mangino MJ (2009) Preservation methods for kidney and liver. Organogenesis 5(3):105–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rust J (1987) Optimal replacement of GMC bus engines: An empirical model of Harold Zurcher. Econometrica 55(5):999–1033.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schaubel DE, Guidinger MK, Biggins SW, Kalbfleisch JD, Pomfret EA, Sharma P, Merion RM (2009) Survival benefit-based deceased-donor liver allocation. Amer. J. Transplantation 9(4):970–981.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 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
• Thompson D, Waisanen L, Wolfe R, Merion RM, Mccullough K, Rodgers A (2004) Simulating the allocation of organs for transplantation. Health Care Management Sci. 7(4):331–338.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Washburn K, Harper A, Timothy B, Edwards E (2016) Changes in liver acceptance patterns after implementation of share 35. Liver Transplantation 22(2):171–177.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wiesner R, Edwards E, Freeman R, Harper A, Kim R, Kamath P, Kremers W, et al. (2003) Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) and allocation of donor livers. Gastroenterology 124(1):91–96.Crossref, 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, 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
• Zhang J (2010) The sound of silence: Observational learning in the U.S. kidney market. Marketing Sci. 29(2):315–335.Link, Google Scholar