A Concentric Neighborhood Solution to Disparity in Liver Access That Contains Current UNOS Districts

Background. Policymakers are deliberating reforms to reduce geographic disparity in liver allocation. Public comments and the United Network for Organ Sharing Liver and Intestinal Committee have expressed interest in refining the neighborhoods approach. Share 35 and Share 15 policies affect geographic disparity. Methods. We construct concentric neighborhoods superimposing the current 11 regions. Using concepts from concentric circles, we construct neighborhoods for each donor service area (DSA) that consider all DSAs within 400, 500, or 600 miles as neighbors. We consider limiting each neighborhood to 10 DSAs and use no metrics for liver supplies and demands. We change Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) thresholds for the Share 15 policy to 18 or 20 and apply 3-and 5-point MELD proximity boosts to enhance local priority, control travel distances, and reduce disparity. We conduct simulations comparing current allocation with the neighborhoods and sharing policies. Results. Concentric neighborhoods structures provide an array of solutions where simulation results indicate that they reduce geographic disparity, annual mortalities, and the airplane travel distances by varying degrees. Tuning of the parameters and policy combinations can lead to beneficial improvements with acceptable transplant volume loss and reductions in geographic disparity and travel distance. Particularly, the 10-DSA, 500-mile neighborhood solution with Share 35, Share 15, and 0-point MELD boost achieves such while limiting transplant volume losses to below10%. Conclusions. The current 11 districts can be adapted systematically by adding neighboring DSAs to improve geographic disparity, mortality, and airplane travel distance. Modifications to Share 35 and Share 15 policies result in further improvements. The solutions may be refined further for implementation

Effect of Age on Opioid Prescribing, Overdose, and Mortality in Massachusetts, 2011 to 2015

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of age on the likelihood of PIP of opioids and the effect of PIP on adverse outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Data from multiple state agencies in Massachusetts from 2011 to 2015. PARTICIPANTS: Adult Massachusetts residents (N=3,078,163) who received at least one prescription opioid during the study period; approximately half (1,589,365) aged 50 and older. MEASUREMENTS: We measured exposure to 5 types of PIP: high-dose opioids, coprescription with benzodiazepines, multiple opioid prescribers, multiple opioid pharmacies, and continuous opioid therapy without a pain diagnosis. We examined 3 adverse outcomes: nonfatal opioid overdose, fatal opioid overdose, and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: The rate of any PIP increased with age, from 2% of individuals age 18 to 29 to 14% of those aged 50 and older. Older adults also had higher rates of exposure to 2 or more different types of PIP (40-49, 2.5%; 50-69, 5%; \u3e /=70, 4%). Of covariates assessed, older age was the greatest predictor of PIP. In analyses stratified according to age, any PIP and specific types of PIP were associated with nonfatal overdose, fatal overdose, and all-cause mortality in younger and older adults. CONCLUSION: Older adults are more likely to be exposed to PIP, which increases their risk of adverse events. Strategies to reduce exposure to PIP and to improve outcomes in those already exposed will be instrumental to addressing the opioid crisis in older adults