Fairness, Efficiency, and Flexibility in Organ Allocation for Kidney Transplantation

被引:119
|
作者
Bertsimas, Dimitris [1 ]
Farias, Vivek F. [1 ]
Trichakis, Nikolaos [2 ]
机构
[1] MIT, Ctr Operat Res, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
[2] Harvard Univ, Sch Business, Technol & Operat Management Unit, Boston, MA 02163 USA
关键词
WAITING-LIST; CADAVERIC TRANSPLANTATION; PAIRED DONATION; MODEL; SURVIVAL; SYSTEM; CANDIDATES; SIMULATION; DIALYSIS; EXCHANGE;
D O I
10.1287/opre.1120.1138
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
We propose a scalable, data-driven method for designing national policies for the allocation of deceased donor kidneys to patients on a waiting list in a fair and efficient way. We focus on policies that have the same form as the one currently used in the United States. In particular, we consider policies that are based on a point system that ranks patients according to some priority criteria, e. g., waiting time, medical urgency, etc., or a combination thereof. Rather than making specific assumptions about fairness principles or priority criteria, our method offers the designer the flexibility to select his desired criteria and fairness constraints from a broad class of allowable constraints. The method then designs a point system that is based on the selected priority criteria and approximately maximizes medical efficiency-i.e., life-year gains from transplant-while simultaneously enforcing selected fairness constraints. Among the several case studies we present employing our method, one case study designs a point system that has the same form, uses the same criteria, and satisfies the same fairness constraints as the point system that was recently proposed by U. S. policy makers. In addition, the point system we design delivers an 8% increase in extra life-year gains. We evaluate the performance of all policies under consideration using the same statistical and simulation tools and data as the U. S. policy makers use. Other case studies perform a sensitivity analysis (for instance, demonstrating that the increase in extra life-year gains by relaxing certain fairness constraints can be as high as 30%) and also pursue the design of policies targeted specifically at remedying criticisms leveled at the recent point system proposed by U. S. policy makers.
引用
收藏
页码:73 / 87
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Fuzzy organ allocation system for cadaveric kidney transplantation
    Gundogar, E
    Duran, FM
    Canbolat, YB
    Turkmen, A
    [J]. TRANSPLANTATION, 2005, 80 (12) : 1648 - 1653
  • [2] Kidney allocation and the perception of fairness
    Shapiro, R.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, 2007, 7 (05) : 1041 - 1042
  • [3] Simultaneous Liver Kidney Transplantation: An Organ Allocation Medical Decision
    Kiberd, Bryce
    Skedgel, Chris
    Alwayn, Ian
    Peltekian, Kevork
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, 2010, 10 : 370 - 370
  • [4] Changing organ allocation policy for kidney transplantation in the United States
    Bhavna Chopra
    Kalathil K Sureshkumar
    [J]. World Journal of Transplantation, 2015, (02) : 38 - 43
  • [5] Factors not incorporated in the organ allocation scheme influence the likelihood of kidney transplantation.
    Gill, JS
    Tonelli, M
    Landsberg, D
    Pereira, BJG
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, 2005, 5 : 261 - 261
  • [6] Kidney allocation: where utility and fairness meet
    de Fijter, Johan W.
    [J]. NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION, 2010, 25 (06) : 1746 - 1749
  • [7] Developing a Fairness Metric for Redistricting in Kidney Allocation
    Formica, R.
    Cherikh, W.
    Stewart, D.
    Kucheryavaya, A.
    Boyle, G.
    Baker, T.
    Aeder, M.
    [J]. TRANSPLANTATION, 2014, 98 : 87 - 87
  • [8] Fairness and the Tyranny of Potential in Kidney Transplantation
    Kaufman, Sharon R.
    [J]. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY, 2013, 54 : S56 - S66
  • [9] Fairness versus Efficiency of Vaccine Allocation Strategies
    Yi, Ming
    Marathe, Achla
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2015, 18 (02) : 278 - 283
  • [10] Efficiency and Fairness: Population Preferences for the Allocation of Resources
    Schwappach, D. L. B.
    [J]. GESUNDHEITSWESEN, 2009, 71 : S9 - S14