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-

Liver Transplantation at a Small Volume Center—The Role of Network System

Proposal of a Network System to Solve the Problem of Small Volume in Liver Transplantation; Catholic Medical Center Network

Liver Transplantation in Patients with Liver Failure: Twenty Years of Experience from China

Influence of graft size matching on outcomes of infantile living donor liver transplantation

Outcomes of 6000 living donor liver transplantation procedures: a pioneering experience at ASAN Medical Center

Disparities in Outcomes of Liver-Related Waiting List for Transplant

Achieving 400 Living Donor Liver Transplantations Annually During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Single-Center Experience

National experience with living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma

Novel Benchmark for Adult-to-Adult Living-Donor Liver Transplantation. Integrating Eastern and Western Experiences

Risk assessment in liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: long-term follow-up of a two-center experience

Liver Transplantation Outcomes in a U.S. Multicenter Cohort of 789 Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Presenting Beyond Milan Criteria

Long‐term outcomes of living‐donor liver transplantation, hepatic resection, and local therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma with three <3‐cm nodules in a single institute

Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma beyond the Milan Criteria: A Specific Role for Living Donor Liver Transplantation after Neoadjuvant Therapy

Role of Basic Studies in Expanding the Donor Pool for Liver Transplantation

[Multimodal Approach to Clinical Liver Transplantation].

Temporal evolution of living donor liver transplantation survival - A UNOS registry study

Experience of living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma in the University of Hong Kong Hospital

[Analysis of 565 Cases of Liver Transplantation at a Single Transplantation Center].

Liver Transplantation in Acute-on-chronic Liver Failure Patients with High Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) Scores: a Single Center Experience of 100 Consecutive Cases.

Therapeutic Effectiveness of Liver Transplantation: a Single Center Study of 203 Consecutive Cases

Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Narrative Review and A Glimpse into The Future