Abstract:A liver transplant (LT) is the only curative intervention for patients with end-stage liver disease. Although significant strides have been made in post-LT care over the past 2 decades, disparities and inequities in liver disease outcomes and access to LT have been serious concerns among the hepatology and transplant communities. In early 2020, the United Network of Organ Sharing and the Organ Procurement Transplant Network (OPTN) instated the acuity circles policy to mitigate potential geographic disparities associated with LT. In a survey of leaders of LT centers, 63% of participants responded that the acuity circles system decreased wait times for patients with a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of lower than 30. Approximately 75% of participants responded that the mean cost per transplant increased, likely owing to traveling a significant distance for organ procurement, whereas graft survival remained constant. However, objective data surrounding the outcomes of acuity circles in terms of waiting list mortality and access to LT remain limited. 1 In this issue of JAMA Open Network , Rinella et al 2 seek to assess the variability in liver disease mortality over time and across state lines. The study's main objective was to assess state-wide and national differences in liver-related mortality in a cross-sectional analysis of data from 2018 and 2021, evaluating both transplant-related data obtained from the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients and data of cause of death available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiological Research database. Liver-related mortality (LRM) was defined as a cause-of-death diagnostic code consistent with underlying liver disease. The authors found an overall increase in LRM from 2018 (23.6 per 100 000 individuals) to 2021 (28.1 per 100 000 individuals), with a more than 4-fold variation between states present in 2021 regardless of waiting list rates. States with low LRM had both the highest rates of out-of-state donation and the greatest chance that an in-state donation would remain within state lines. In contrast, the highest LRM states rarely retained in-state donor organs, with almost 3 in 4 eligible organs ultimately leaving the state for transplant elsewhere, and were predominately states without an in-state transplant center. This study shows, in line with prior studies, that proximity to and volume of available transplant centers continue to play a role in access to LT. 3 This study acknowledges that differences in LRM are multifactorial, and there are several nonmedical aspects to consider specific to an organ transplant. For example, the success and stability of a transplant program is contingent on its outcomes. Outcome metrics for each center are a function of total transplant volume in relation to each patient's posttransplant course, such that smaller programs have limited room for error. When transplant programs have poor outcomes, their ability to retain contracts with insurance companies for continued provision of transplant care can be affected. Therefore, because of the compensation model for transplant and the programmatic risks associated with certain cases, smaller centers may be more risk averse regarding what organs and which patients they will accept, whereas larger centers may have more flexibility and thus can afford to take on more medically or surgically complex cases. The aggressiveness of a transplant program is variable and dynamic over time, and detecting this nuance and accounting for it in any transplant policy are nearly impossible. Additionally, marginal organs can potentially be rescued from being discarded through technologies such as machine perfusion. In theory, these machines increase organ availability, but because of their high costs, this is only true for those programs that can afford to pay for these services. An additional layer to consider is that medical complexity often varies by recipient insurance coverage. Medicaid, as a state-determined health care benefit, varies in coverage for transplants across state lines, especially for certain disease conditions (such as alcohol-associated liver disease). Although Medicaid expansion through the Affordable Care Act increased access to waiting lists for LT, patients with public insurance continue to have poorer waiting list outcomes as well as increased posttransplant mortality. 4 ,5 The cause of this is likely multifaceted and likely more related to systemic issues for patients with public insurance, such as access to routine preventive medical care, as well as other social drivers of health that can affect these populations. Given the persistent issues with access to LT and equitable organ allocation, the OPTN has recently put forth a proposal currently out for public comment regarding an upcoming change t -Abstract Truncated-

The Evolution of the MELD Score and Its Implications in Liver Transplant Allocation: A Beginner's Guide for Trainees

Differences in Access to Liver Transplantation: Disease Severity, Waiting Time, and Transplantation Center Volume

Changing landscape of liver transplant in the United States- time for a new innovative way to define and utilize the "non-standard liver allograft"-a proposal

Developments in Pediatric Liver Transplantation Since Implementation of the New Allocation Rules in Eurotransplant

Development of a Novel Prognostic Nomogram for High Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Score Recipients Following Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation

Impact of major hepatocellular carcinoma policy changes on liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States

Benefit in liver transplantation: a survey among medical staff, patients, medical students and non-medical university staff and students

Revising model for end-stage liver disease from calendar-time cross-sections with correction for selection bias

Inconsistent values and algorithmic fairness: a review of organ allocation priority systems in the United States

Expanding MELD exceptions for colorectal liver metastasis: data and policy

Differential Effects of Ascites and Hepatic Encephalopathy on Waitlist Mortality in Liver Transplantation by MELD 3.0

Model of end stage liver disease (MELD) score greater than 23 predicts length of stay in the ICU but not mortality in liver transplant recipients

Variation in intention-to-treat survival by MELD subtypes: all models created for end-stage liver disease are not equal

MELD Score and Blood Product Requirements During Liver Transplantation: No Link

Evolving trends and outcomes on the US liver transplant waitlist of alcohol‐associated hepatitis patients with very high MELD scores

[Review of Risk Evaluation Scores for Benign End Stage Liver Diseases Recipients].

The economic implications of broader sharing of liver allografts

Disparities in Outcomes of Liver-Related Waiting List for Transplant

Variant Outcomes of Liver Transplantation for Hepatitis C Virus Patients in Different Age Categories: Impact of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Score

Quantitative Methods for Optimizing Patient Outcomes in Liver Transplantation

Median Meld at Transplant Minus 3 Reduces the Mortality of Non-Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients on the Liver Transplant Waitlist