Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Article Collections
    • JASN Podcasts
    • Archives
    • Saved Searches
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Editorial Team
  • Subscriptions
  • More
    • About JASN
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Editorial Fellowship Team
    • Feedback
    • Reprints
    • Impact Factor
    • Editorial Fellowship Application Process
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Other
    • CJASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society of Nephrology
  • Other
    • CJASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement
American Society of Nephrology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Article Collections
    • JASN Podcasts
    • Archives
    • Saved Searches
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Editorial Team
  • Subscriptions
  • More
    • About JASN
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Editorial Fellowship Team
    • Feedback
    • Reprints
    • Impact Factor
    • Editorial Fellowship Application Process
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Follow JASN on Twitter
  • Visit ASN on Facebook
  • Follow JASN on RSS
  • Community Forum
Clinical Epidemiology
You have accessRestricted Access

Financial Costs Incurred by Living Kidney Donors: A Prospective Cohort Study

Sebastian Przech, Amit X. Garg, Jennifer B. Arnold, Lianne Barnieh, Meaghan S. Cuerden, Christine Dipchand, Liane Feldman, John S. Gill, Martin Karpinski, Greg Knoll, Charmaine Lok, Matthew Miller, Mauricio Monroy, Chris Nguan, G.V. Ramesh Prasad, Sisira Sarma, Jessica M. Sontrop, Leroy Storsley, Scott Klarenbach and on behalf of the Donor Nephrectomy Outcomes Research (DONOR) Network
JASN December 2018, 29 (12) 2847-2857; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2018040398
Sebastian Przech
1Department of Medicine and Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, London Health Sciences Centre, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Amit X. Garg
1Department of Medicine and Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, London Health Sciences Centre, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jennifer B. Arnold
1Department of Medicine and Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, London Health Sciences Centre, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lianne Barnieh
1Department of Medicine and Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, London Health Sciences Centre, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Meaghan S. Cuerden
1Department of Medicine and Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, London Health Sciences Centre, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christine Dipchand
2Division of Nephrology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Liane Feldman
3Department of Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John S. Gill
4Division of Nephrology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Martin Karpinski
5Department of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Greg Knoll
6Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Charmaine Lok
7Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matthew Miller
8Division of Nephrology and Transplantation, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mauricio Monroy
9Department of Surgery, Foothills Medical Center, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chris Nguan
4Division of Nephrology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
G.V. Ramesh Prasad
10Division of Nephrology, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sisira Sarma
1Department of Medicine and Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, London Health Sciences Centre, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jessica M. Sontrop
1Department of Medicine and Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, London Health Sciences Centre, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Leroy Storsley
5Department of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Scott Klarenbach
11Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Approximately 40% of the kidneys for transplant worldwide come from living donors. Despite advantages of living donor transplants, rates have stagnated in recent years. One possible barrier may be costs related to the transplant process that potential willing donors may incur for travel, parking, accommodation, and lost productivity.

Methods To better understand and quantify the financial costs incurred by living kidney donors, we conducted a prospective cohort study, recruiting 912 living kidney donors from 12 transplant centers across Canada between 2009 and 2014; 821 of them completed all or a portion of the costing survey. We report microcosted total, out-of-pocket, and lost productivity costs (in 2016 Canadian dollars) for living kidney donors from donor evaluation start to 3 months after donation. We examined costs according to (1) the donor’s relationship with their recipient, including spousal (donation to a partner), emotionally related nonspousal (friend, step-parent, in law), or genetically related; and (2) donation type (directed, paired kidney, or nondirected).

Results Living kidney donors incurred a median (75th percentile) of $1254 ($2589) in out-of-pocket costs and $0 ($1908) in lost productivity costs. On average, total costs were $2226 higher in spousal compared with emotionally related nonspousal donors (P=0.02) and $1664 higher in directed donors compared with nondirected donors (P<0.001). Total costs (out-of-pocket and lost productivity) exceeded $5500 for 205 (25%) donors.

Conclusions Our results can be used to inform strategies to minimize the financial burden of living donation, which may help improve the donation experience and increase the number of living donor kidney transplants.

  • kidney donation
  • Economic Analysis
  • kidney transplantation

Kidney transplantation is the preferred treatment for kidney failure. Recipients who receive a kidney from a living donor, compared with a deceased donor, spend less time on dialysis waiting for a transplant and are more likely to experience a longer life with better graft survival.1,2 Despite these advantages, the number of living donor kidney transplants per year in many countries has remained the same or declined over the last decade.3−5

Although living donors may vary according to their relationship to the donors, the evaluation process, surgery, and recovery remain similar. Living donor candidates are evaluated for their suitability in a process that involves multiple tests and visits to health professionals, and many donors incur costs for travel, parking, and lost productivity, including time off work. These costs occur in the context of a gift that improves the health of a patient with kidney failure and saves publically funded health care systems: every 100 kidney transplants saves the Canadian health care system approximately $20 million over 5 years from averted dialysis costs.6 Although some countries have programs that reimburse donors for certain financial losses, not all costs are reimbursed, and many prospective donors cite financial concerns as a top reason for not proceeding with donation.7−9 Given the outlay of money for travel, parking, and time off work (when applicable), financial costs may pose a barrier for potential willing donors and could be a contributing factor to stagnating rates of living kidney donation.9

Prior efforts to quantify the costs incurred by living kidney donors have been limited by small sample sizes, retrospective data collection, and incomplete cost data.8 Furthermore, some groups of donors may incur higher costs; for example, paired kidney donors may incur higher costs for travel, whereas spousal donors may incur higher costs for childcare (or other dependent care) when both parents are receiving medical attention. There is consensus within the transplant community that living kidney donation should not be a financial burden to donors.10 A detailed description of the financial costs incurred by living kidney donors can be used to develop or improve sound policies and programs across countries to reimburse legitimate expenses incurred by living donors across all subgroups. The information can also feature in donor informed consent and education. We conducted this study to better understand and quantify the financial costs incurred by living kidney donors.

Methods

Patient Involvement

The objectives of this study directly address a priority of living kidney donors and their recipients.9 Patients were not involved in the design or conduct of this study; however, the results of this study will be disseminated through existing and ongoing patient partnerships. Furthermore, our research group works closely with local organ procurement organizations and patient advocacy groups, such as the Kidney Foundation of Canada.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Data for this study were obtained from an ongoing multicenter prospective cohort study examining the medical, financial, and psychologic implications of living kidney donation. Participants (1042 living kidney donors and 400 healthy matched nondonors) were enrolled from 12 centers in Canada and five centers in Australia between 2004 and 2014. The results presented here are for the subset of 912 Canadian donors enrolled between 2009 and 2014 (results for the Australian donors are reported elsewhere11). The conduct and reporting of this study follow recommended guidelines (Supplemental Appendix A).12

All donors who participated in this study were approved by their local program for living kidney donation, were enrolled before donation, were 18 years of age or older, and could communicate in English or French. All participants provided written informed consent. Ethics approval was obtained from all participating centers (Western University’s Research Ethics Board Institutional Review Board approval number 6056).

Costing Methods and Measures

As summarized in Figure 1, we assessed costs incurred by donors using the microcosting approach of resource identification, measurement, and valuation. Major cost categories relevant to living kidney donors were identified through a systematic review of the literature,8 consultation with transplant health care professionals, and a prospective study of 100 Canadian living kidney donors.13 On the basis of this work, we designed a costing survey that captured the major types of costs incurred by living kidney donors: (1) out-of-pocket costs, including ground and air travel, parking, accommodation, and prescription medications, and (2) lost productivity costs, including lost wages (i.e., unpaid leave) and an inability to perform household activities or care for dependents.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Overview of microcosting methods used to determine out-of-pocket and lost productivity costs. API, application programming interfaces.

Data Collection

At study entry (before donation), participants underwent a physical examination and completed a standardized survey with questions on sociodemographic characteristics and health history. At 3 months, donors completed a mailed survey with questions on expenses incurred during the donor evaluation and perioperative period. The 3-month timeframe was chosen, because the accuracy of recalling information during this timeframe has an interclass coefficient >0.80.14,15 Additionally, most expenses related to donation occur within this timeframe.13 Multiple attempts were made to contact donors (by phone, mail, or email) about missing or discrepant data.

Resource Units and Valuation

We measured units of resources consumed and the cost per unit (e.g., distance traveled and cost per kilometer) to allow for comparisons across jurisdictions.16 Full details of the different resource units (travel, accommodation, medication, time, and productivity) and how they were measured are provided in Supplemental Appendix B. Briefly, resource units were assigned monetary values using conventional costing techniques and appropriate provincial or local rates and estimates (e.g., lost wages were estimated using provincial age- and sex-specific average wage rates,17,18 and ground travel was estimated using provincial kilometric rates19). For resources where no unit cost or rate was available (e.g., expenses associated with dependent care), donor-reported costs were used. All costs were standardized to the year 2016 (Canadian dollars) using inflation rates from Statistics Canada’s Consumer Price Index.20

Statistical Analyses

Total costs were summarized as means and SD as well as medians (25th, 75th percentiles). The primary analysis was restricted to donors with complete or partially complete costing data, where it was assumed that no costs (value of $0) were incurred if the costs or resource use for a given category were missing. A secondary analysis was done to include all donors (including donors missing all cost data) using full conditional specification multiple imputation models, generating 20 imputations to reduce sampling error.21 Missing data were imputed at the resource level rather than at the cost level (e.g., if no value was provided for number of ground trips, we imputed the number of ground trips rather than the total cost of ground travel). Diagnostics were assessed using the midiagplots command in Stata for efficient comparisons of the distributions.22 After these diagnostic tests for link function and family, we used a generalized linear model with a log link and γ-distribution to elicit adjusted comparisons of donor expenses between groups, a specification commonly used in health economic literature to model costs.

We conducted two prespecified analyses to examine whether costs varied according to whether donors knew their recipient (relationship type) or whether the donations were directed (donation type). Relationship-type donations were defined as spousal (donation to a partner), genetically related (sibling, parent, child, or genetically related relative), or emotionally related nonspousal (friend, step-parent, or in law). Donation-type donations were defined as directed (donation to a specified recipient), kidney paired (swap of kidneys in incompatible donor/recipient pairs), and nondirected (donors who were not known to the recipient, although they may have initiated a chain of paired donations). In an additional exploratory analyses, we examined whether costs varied across groups of donors defined by age (<35, 35–54, or 55 years of age and over), distance to the transplant evaluation center (<100 or ≥100 km), and employment status (employed, unemployed, retired, or other). We used multivariable regression models to compare out-of-pocket, lost productivity, and total costs in donor subgroups adjusting for age, sex, income, and transplant center (with the exception of the subgroups defined by age, where age was not an adjustment factor). We used models and distributions commonly used in health economic literature to analyze costs.23 We performed pairwise recycled predictions between referent and comparator groups to calculate the adjusted average marginal effects (as differences in costs between groups) along with their 95% confidence intervals and P values.

All analyses were conducted using Stata 14.2 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX).24,25 Statistical tests were two tailed using a significance level of 0.05. The sample size enabled the upper and lower bounds of most 95% confidence intervals to span ≤$1000 (data not presented), indicating good precision for a range where the true parameter may be.

Results

Of the 912 donors enrolled in the study, all completed the predonation medical survey; 821 (90%) completed all or a portion of the 3-month costing survey (missing data are summarized in Supplemental Appendix C, Supplemental Table 1). Characteristics of the 821 donors are shown in Table 1 (all 912 donors are summarized in Supplemental Appendix C, Supplemental Table 2). Most donors were women (68%), white (88%), and married or living with a partner (79%). In 40% of donors, evaluations took place at a transplant center located >100 km from the donor’s home. Most donors knew their recipients: 386 (47%) were genetically related, 160 (19%) were emotionally related nonspousal, and 130 (16%) were spousal; the remainder donated as part of a kidney paired exchange (n=111 [14%]) or nondirected donation (n=34 [4%]). Donor characteristics were similar across groups, although 83% of spousal donors were women. Of the 669 (81%) donors who reported an annual household income, 159 (24%) had an income below $50,000, and 259 (39%) had an income above $100,000 Canadian dollars (for reference, the median Canadian household income in 2014 was $78,870).26

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of 821 Canadian living kidney donors

Out-of-Pocket Costs

Out-of-pocket costs incurred by donors are summarized in Table 2. The most common out-of-pocket costs were for ground travel, parking, and postdonation prescription medication (analgesics or antibiotics), which were reported by 98% (804 donors), 88% (721 donors), and 77% (629 donors) of donors, respectively. The highest median costs (among donors who reported costs for a given category) were for nonhospital paid accommodation (median $746 [340 donors]), air travel (median $562 [173 donors]), and ground travel (median $405 [804 donors]). The median total out-of-pocket cost among all donors was $1254 ($531, $2589).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Out-of-pocket costs incurred by living kidney donors (2016 Canadian dollars) for 821 Canadian donors

Lost Donor Productivity Costs

Lost donor productivity costs are summarized in Table 3. A total of 634 donors were unable to work for a median of 35 days in the 3 months after donation. Of the 634 donors who were unable to work, 251 (40%) took unpaid time off work for a median of 30 days (the remaining 383 did not report unpaid time off work). The median lost income for the 251 donors who experienced unpaid time off work was $5534. Postsurgery, 650 (79%) donors reported being unable to perform household activities, and 415 (51%) indicated that they were unable to care for dependents, although median self-reported costs in each category were zero. The median total lost productivity cost among all donors was $0 ($0, $1908).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Lost donor productivity costs incurred by living kidney donors (2016 Canadian dollars) for 821 Canadian donors

Opportunity Costs

Of the 634 donors unable to work, 440 (69%) donors reported a median of 31 days of paid time off work. The median value of paid time off work was $6106 ($2503, $10,685) (Table 4). An alternate method of valuing lost home productivity using average wage rates for household activities and caring for dependents is presented in Table 4. Median costs of lost home productivity when valued at average wage rates were $3182 ($1894, $5940) and $2970 ($1705, $5724) for household activities and caring for dependents, respectively.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Opportunity costs of living kidney donors (2016 Canadian dollars)

Overall Financial Burden

The median total cost—out-of-pocket and lost productivity combined—was $2217 ($882, $5484). The maximum amount reimbursed to donors in most provinces in Canada through existing programs is $5500; total costs exceeded this amount in 25% of donors (n=205).

Subgroup Analyses

Comparisons between subgroups of donors are shown in Table 5. Total costs were higher in spousal compared with emotionally related (nonspousal) donors and directed compared with nondirected donors. Total costs did not differ significantly by age group; however, younger donors had significantly lower out-of-pocket costs and higher donor productivity losses, most likely due to a greater loss of income (Figure 2). Donors who lived farther from the transplant evaluation center (≥100 km) incurred higher out-of-pocket and total costs compared with those who lived closer. Employed donors had greater productivity losses compared with unemployed or retired donors.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 5.

Adjusted out-of-pocket, lost productivity, and total costs (2016 Canadian dollars; n=821) between subgroups of donors

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

The mean out-of-pocket and lost productivity costs incurred by donors stratified by age (2016 Canadian dollars).

Secondary Analysis

Similar results were obtained for all analyses when using multiple imputation to estimate missing values (Supplemental Appendix C, Supplemental Tables 3–5).

Discussion

To our knowledge, our study is the largest of its kind to rigorously capture data on the financial costs incurred by different types of living kidney donors. We found that donors experience significant financial loss throughout the donation process as represented by median (75th percentile) out-of-pocket, lost productivity, and total costs of $1254 ($2589), $0 ($1908), and $2217 ($5484), respectively. This adds to the growing body of evidence that many living donors experience significant financial loss due to donation. Of note, median total costs exceeded $1000 for nearly 75% of donors, $5500 for 25% of donors, and $10,000 for 13% of donors.

We also noted differences in costs borne by various groups of donors. Spousal donors incurred significantly higher costs than genetically or emotionally (nonspousal) related donors, possibly due to greater lost workforce productivity and/or the difficulty of caring for children or other dependents when both carers are receiving medical attention. Nondirected donors reported significantly lower lost productivity costs than directed or kidney paired donors; however, these donors also had the lowest median household income of all donor groups. Associations between household income and donor financial burden warrant additional exploration. The finding that kidney paired donors did not incur higher costs than other donors is reassuring for the continued success of Canada’s national program, which has enabled over 500 transplants since 2009.27 Kidney paired donors may need to travel farther and undergo additional testing that meets the donation criteria of all transplant centers participating in the national kidney paired donation program. One recent Canadian study identified that, of 51 kidney paired donors, all 51 underwent surgery in a different province from the one in which they were originally evaluated.28

Donor candidates may be withdrawing from the donation process due to concerns about financial burden from lost wages during the postoperative period.29 In our study, 25% of donors incurred costs that exceeded $5500, which is the reimbursement limit in many Canadian provinces. A recent report found that donors who perceived donation-related financial burden were less likely to have an income above the median in their residential area.30 In a separate study, candidates told family members and friends that they were willing to donate but that they were concerned about the potential lost income.31 Prior cost estimates vary, with median out-of-pocket costs ranging between $179 and $821 (not accounting for productivity losses).13,32 Other reports have highlighted the financial burden faced by living donors, with 18% reporting US $500 or more in nonmedical expenses.33

Current guidelines, recent consensus conferences, and strategic planning reports highlight the need to reduce financial disincentives to living donation or achieve financial neutrality, advocating for (1) a standardized, consistent system of reimbursement and legislation that protects employed donors and (2) the development of a financial toolkit for prospective donors.10,34−36 These initiatives require accurate data on the costs incurred by donors. However, donors are currently encouraged to use vacation days and/or sick time to reduce any lost income due to donation. This was reflected in our study, because 251 donors reported a median of 30 days off work without pay and 440 donors reported 31 days off with pay. Although current recommendations do not advocate accounting for home productivity costs, these opportunity costs do have an economic value. Although self-reported out-of-pocket costs borne by donors were relatively small, when a monetary value was assigned to the number of days unable to perform household activities or care for dependents at provincial wage rates, the additional median costs are $3182 and $2970, respectively.

In an exploratory analysis, we found significantly higher out-of-pocket costs for older donors, which likely reflect the need for additional testing and evaluation due to comorbidities compared with younger donors; indeed, older donors did take more trips to their transplant evaluation center, resulting in higher travel and accommodation costs. Conversely, younger donors were frequently employed and incurred higher lost workforce productivity costs (e.g., number of unpaid days off work) than older retired donors. Similar to previous studies, we found that donors who lived farther than 100 km from their transplant evaluation center incurred higher out-of-pocket costs than donors who lived closer, with no significant difference in productivity costs.32,37 Recognizing the effect of these nonmodifiable characteristics on out-of-pocket and lost productivity costs may help transplant programs better prepare potential donor candidates for the financial losses that they may encounter during donation.

This report has many strengths: a multicenter prospective cohort study design, 90% complete follow-up, rigorous statistical methods accounting for missing data, and appropriate regression models to analyze right-skewed cost data. Our cost-capturing instruments were informed by a pilot study using comprehensive and complete data collection methods.13 Our sample of donors, representing nearly 30% of all living kidney donors in Canada during our recruitment window,38 is the first to include donors participating in Canada’s kidney paired donation program, which began in 2009. There are some limitations to our study. All participants were from Canada, 88% were of white race, and 40% lived >100 km from their transplant evaluation center; these characteristics may affect the generalizability of our findings to other countries. We only considered costs related to the evaluation and up to 3 months after nephrectomy. We did not consider costs attributable to the development of any possible long-term complications from nephrectomy, and we did not consider total lost workforce productivity costs (costs to employer or other programs for lost wages, etc.). We did not include companion costs for travel, care, or other expenses in our analysis, which may be particularly relevant for donors who travel long distances to donate as part of the kidney paired donation; these costs would further increase the estimates of out-of-pocket costs for donors. Although we endeavored to limit self-reported costs, hospital discharge prescription drug coverage was not readily available, and thus, we relied on donor-reported costs. Because reporting of income was optional, data were only available for approximately 80% of donors, and as such, analyses adjusted for income were restricted to this group of donors. Income, however, was not found to be related to either out-of-pocket or lost productivity costs (data not shown). Finally, donor candidates who are evaluated but never donate can also encounter important financial consequences but were not included in this analysis.

In conclusion, many living kidney donors incur substantial costs associated with donation. These results characterize these costs and can be used to inform reimbursement strategies and programs, with the aim of identifying and assisting those at high risk of economic consequences. Removing financial disincentives to donation may increase the number of living kidney donor transplants and improve the donation experience for all types of donors. Future studies will explore other factors that may affect donor incurred costs, including, among others, geography and center differences.

DISCLOSURES

None.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Appendix A. Checklist of recommendations for reporting of observational studies using Strengthening the Reporting of Observation Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines.

Supplemental Appendix B. Supplemental methods.

Supplemental Appendix C. Supplemental tables and figures.

Supplemental Table 1. Pattern of missingness for costing variables.

Supplemental Table 2. Comparing demographic characteristics between donors with all or partially complete economic data and donors missing all economic data.

Supplemental Table 3. Out-of-pocket costs (2016 Canadian dollars) incurred by living donors: scenario analysis of multiple imputation for all donors (n=912).

Supplemental Table 4. Lost productivity costs (2016 Canadian dollars) incurred by living kidney donors: scenario analysis of multiple imputation for all donors (n=912).

Supplemental Table 5. Adjusted out-of-pocket, lost productivity, and total costs (2016 Canadian dollars) for all donors (n=912).

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Philip Jacobs for his advice and support. We thank members of the External Scientific Advisory Board (Dr. Stephen Walter, Dr. Sheldon Tobe, and the late Dr. David Sackett) for their oversight of the scientific integrity of the Donor Nephrectomy Outcomes Research Network prospective study. DONOR Network Investigators: Jennifer B. Arnold, Lianne Barnieh, Neil Boudville, Meaghan S. Cuerden, Christine Dipchand, Liane Feldman, Amit Garg, John S. Gill, Martin Karpinski, Scott Klarenbach, Greg A. Knoll, Charmaine E. Lok, Matthew Miller, Mauricio Monroy-Cuadros, Chris Nguan, GV Ramesh Prasad, Jessica M. Sontrop, Leroy Storsley, and Darin Treleaven.

Operating grant support was provided by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), which included partnership funding from Astellas for data collection. A.X.G. was supported by the Dr. Adam Linton Chair in Kidney Health Analytics and a Canadian Investigator Award from the CIHR. S.K. is supported by the Kidney Health Research Chair and the Division of Nephrology at the University of Alberta.

A.X.G. and S.K. affirm that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as originally planned (and if relevant, registered) have been explained. All authors have completed the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors uniform disclosure form.

Footnotes

  • A.X.G. and S.K. contributed equally to this work.

  • Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.jasn.org.

  • See related editorial, “The Terrible Toll of the Kidney Shortage,” on pages 2775–2776.

  • This article contains supplemental material online at http://jasn.asnjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1681/ASN.2018040398/-/DCSupplemental.

  • Copyright © 2018 by the American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    1. Meier-Kriesche H-U,
    2. Kaplan B
    : Waiting time on dialysis as the strongest modifiable risk factor for renal transplant outcomes: A paired donor kidney analysis. Transplantation 74: 1377–1381, 2002pmid:12451234
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Terasaki PI,
    2. Cecka JM,
    3. Gjertson DW,
    4. Takemoto S,
    5. Cho YW,
    6. Yuge J
    : Risk rate and long-term kidney transplant survival. Clin Transpl 1996: 443–458, 1996pmid:9286587
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Canadian Blood Services
    : Kidney Paired Donation Program Data Report 2009-2013, 2015. Available at: http://www.organsandtissues.ca/s/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Canadian-Blood-Services-KPD-Program-Data-Report-2009-2013.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2016
    1. Webster G,
    2. Wu J,
    3. Turner M,
    4. Ivis F,
    5. de Sa E,
    6. Hall N
    : Canadian Organ Replacement Register Annual Report: Treatment of End-Stage Organ Failure in Canada 2004–2013, Ottawa, ON, Canada, Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2015
  4. ↵
    1. Reese PP,
    2. Boudville N,
    3. Garg AX
    : Living kidney donation: Outcomes, ethics, and uncertainty. Lancet 385: 2003–2013, 2015pmid:26090646
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Klarenbach SW,
    2. Tonelli M,
    3. Chui B,
    4. Manns BJ
    : Economic evaluation of dialysis therapies. Nat Rev Nephrol 10: 644–652, 2014pmid:25157840
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Jacobs C,
    2. Thomas C
    : Financial considerations in living organ donation. Prog Transplant 13: 130–136, 2003pmid:12841520
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Clarke KS,
    2. Klarenbach S,
    3. Vlaicu S,
    4. Yang RC,
    5. Garg AX; Donor Nephrectomy Outcomes Research (DONOR) Network
    : The direct and indirect economic costs incurred by living kidney donors-a systematic review. Nephrol Dial Transplant 21: 1952–1960, 2006pmid:16554329
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Getchell LE,
    2. McKenzie SQ,
    3. Sontrop JM,
    4. Hayward JS,
    5. McCallum MK,
    6. Garg AX
    : Increasing the rate of living donor kidney transplantation in Ontario: Donor-and recipient-identified barriers and solutions. Can J Kidney Heal Dis 4, 2017, p. 2054358117698666
  9. ↵
    1. Hays R,
    2. Rodrigue JR,
    3. Cohen D,
    4. Danovitch G,
    5. Matas A,
    6. Schold J, et al
    .: Financial neutrality for living organ donors: Reasoning, rationale, definitions, and implementation strategies. Am J Transplant 16: 1973–1981, 2016pmid:27037542
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Barnieh L,
    2. Kanellis J,
    3. McDonald S,
    4. Arnold J,
    5. Sontrop JM,
    6. Cuerden M,et al.: Donor Nephrectomy Outcomes Research (DONOR) Network
    : Direct and indirect costs incurred by Australian living kidney donors [published online ahead of print December 7, 2017]. Nephrology (Carlton) doi: 10.1111/nep.13205pmid:29215180
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. von Elm E,
    2. Altman DG,
    3. Egger M,
    4. Pocock SJ,
    5. Gøtzsche PC,
    6. Vandenbroucke JP: STROBE Initiative
    : The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Prev Med 45: 247–251, 2007pmid:17950122
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Klarenbach S,
    2. Gill JS,
    3. Knoll G,
    4. Caulfield T,
    5. Boudville N,
    6. Prasad GV, et al.: Donor Nephrectomy Outcomes Research (DONOR) Network
    : Economic consequences incurred by living kidney donors: A Canadian multi-center prospective study. Am J Transplant 14: 916–922, 2014pmid:24597854
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Evans C,
    2. Crawford B
    : Patient self-reports in pharmacoeconomic studies. Their use and impact on study validity. Pharmacoeconomics 15: 241–256, 1999pmid:10537432
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Revicki DA,
    2. Irwin D,
    3. Reblando J,
    4. Simon GE
    : The accuracy of self-reported disability days. Med Care 32: 401–404, 1994pmid:8139304
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Gold MR,
    2. Siegel J,
    3. Russell LB,
    4. Weinstein MC
    : Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, New York, Oxford University Press, 1996
  16. ↵
    1. Statistics Canada
    : Average Hourly Earnings (Including Overtime) for Employees Paid by the Hour, by Province and Territory, 2017. Available at: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/labr80-eng.htm. Accessed June 27, 2017
  17. ↵
    1. Statistics Canada
    : Labour Force Survey Estimates (LFS), Wages of Employees by Job Permanence, Union Coverage, Sex and Age Groupannual (Current Dollars), 2017. Available at: http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26?lang=eng&id=2820074#F7. Accessed July 27, 2016
  18. ↵
    1. Statistics Canada
    : Meal and Vehicle Rates Used to Calculate Travel Expenses for 2016 and Previous Years, 2017. Available at: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/travelcosts/. Accessed June 27, 2017
  19. ↵
    1. Statistics Canada
    : Consumer Price Index, Historical Summary (1996 to 2016), 2017. Available at: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/econ46a-eng.htm. Accessed June 27, 2017
  20. ↵
    1. Carpenter J,
    2. Kenward M
    : Multiple Imputation and Its Application, Hoboken, NJ, Wiley-Blackwell, 2013
  21. ↵
    1. White IR,
    2. Royston P,
    3. Wood AM
    : Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med 30: 377–399, 2011pmid:21225900
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Glick HA,
    2. Doshi JA,
    3. Sonnad SS,
    4. Polsky D
    : Economic Evaluation in Clinical Trials, Oxford, United Kingdom, OUP, 2014
  23. ↵
    1. StataCorp
    : Stata Statistical Software: Release 14, 2015 College Station, TX
  24. ↵
    1. StataCorp
    : Stata 14 Multiple Imputation Reference Manual, 2015 College Station, TX
  25. ↵
    1. Statistics Canada
    : Median Total Income, by Family Type, by Province and Territory (All Census Families). Available at: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/FAMIL108A-eng.htm. Accessed July 27, 2017
  26. ↵
    1. Hendren E,
    2. Gill J,
    3. Landsberg D,
    4. Dong J,
    5. Rose C,
    6. Gill JS
    : Willingness of directed living donors and their recipients to participate in kidney paired donation programs. Transplantation 99: 1894–1899, 2015pmid:25695874
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Reikie BA,
    2. Kroczak T,
    3. McGregor TB
    : Challenges for the travelling donor: Variability between donor workup and donor surgery in the Canadian kidney paired exchange program. Transplant Proc 49: 1232–1236, 2017pmid:28735986
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Thiessen C,
    2. Kim YA,
    3. Formica R,
    4. Bia M,
    5. Kulkarni S
    : Opting out: Confidentiality and availability of an ‘alibi’ for potential living kidney donors in the USA. J Med Ethics 41: 506–510, 2015pmid:25368413
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Ruck JM,
    2. Holscher CM,
    3. Purnell TS,
    4. Massie AB,
    5. Henderson ML,
    6. Segev DL
    : Factors associated with perceived donation-related financial burden among living kidney donors. Am J Transplant 18: 715–719, 2018pmid:29068176
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Rodrigue JR,
    2. Schold JD,
    3. Mandelbrot DA,
    4. Taber DJ,
    5. Phan V,
    6. Baliga PK
    : Concern for lost income following donation deters some patients from talking to potential living donors. Prog Transplant 26: 292–298, 2016pmid:27495327
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Rodrigue JR,
    2. Schold JD,
    3. Morrissey P,
    4. Whit ing J,
    5. Vella J,
    6. Kayler LK, et al.: KDOC Study Group
    : Direct and indirect costs following living kidney donation: Findings from the KDOC Study. Am J Transplant 16: 869–876, 2016pmid:26845630
    OpenUrlPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Wiseman JF,
    2. Jacobs CL,
    3. Larson DB,
    4. Berglund DM,
    5. Garvey CA,
    6. Ibrahim HN, et al
    .: Financial burden borne by laparoscopic living kidney donors. Transplantation 101: 2253–2257, 2017pmid:27941440
    OpenUrlPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Tushla L,
    2. Rudow DL,
    3. Milton J,
    4. Rodrigue JR,
    5. Schold JD,
    6. Hays R; American Society of Transplantation
    : Living-donor kidney transplantation: Reducing financial barriers to live kidney donation--recommendations from a consensus conference. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 10: 1696–1702, 2015pmid:26002904
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. NHS Blood and Transplant
    : Living Donor Kidney Transplantation 2020: A UK Strategy, 2017. Available at: https://nhsbtdbe.blob.core.windows.net/umbraco-assets-corp/1434/ldkt_2020_strategy.pdf. Accessed July 27, 2017
  34. ↵
    1. Lentine KL,
    2. Kasiske BL,
    3. Levey AS, et al
    .: KDIGO clinical practice guideline on the evaluation and care of living kidney donors. Transplantation 101(8SSuppl 1): S1–S109, 2017
    OpenUrlPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. McGrath P,
    2. Holewa H
    : ‘It’s a regional thing’: Financial impact of renal transplantation on live donors. Rural Remote Health 12: 2144, 2012pmid:23127520
    OpenUrlPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Canadian Blood Services
    : Data Compiled for System Progress Report Based on Published Statistics from Canadian Organ Replacement Register, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2016
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: 29 (12)
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 29, Issue 12
December 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Sign up for Alerts
Email Article
Thank you for your help in sharing the high-quality science in JASN.
Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Financial Costs Incurred by Living Kidney Donors: A Prospective Cohort Study
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society of Nephrology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society of Nephrology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Financial Costs Incurred by Living Kidney Donors: A Prospective Cohort Study
Sebastian Przech, Amit X. Garg, Jennifer B. Arnold, Lianne Barnieh, Meaghan S. Cuerden, Christine Dipchand, Liane Feldman, John S. Gill, Martin Karpinski, Greg Knoll, Charmaine Lok, Matthew Miller, Mauricio Monroy, Chris Nguan, G.V. Ramesh Prasad, Sisira Sarma, Jessica M. Sontrop, Leroy Storsley, Scott Klarenbach, on behalf of the Donor Nephrectomy Outcomes Research (DONOR) Network
JASN Dec 2018, 29 (12) 2847-2857; DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2018040398

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Financial Costs Incurred by Living Kidney Donors: A Prospective Cohort Study
Sebastian Przech, Amit X. Garg, Jennifer B. Arnold, Lianne Barnieh, Meaghan S. Cuerden, Christine Dipchand, Liane Feldman, John S. Gill, Martin Karpinski, Greg Knoll, Charmaine Lok, Matthew Miller, Mauricio Monroy, Chris Nguan, G.V. Ramesh Prasad, Sisira Sarma, Jessica M. Sontrop, Leroy Storsley, Scott Klarenbach, on behalf of the Donor Nephrectomy Outcomes Research (DONOR) Network
JASN Dec 2018, 29 (12) 2847-2857; DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2018040398
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • DISCLOSURES
    • Supplemental Material
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Effect of Kidney Function on Relationships between Lifestyle Behaviors and Mortality or Cardiovascular Outcomes: A Pooled Cohort Analysis
  • Subtyping CKD Patients by Consensus Clustering: The Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) Study
  • Racial Differences in AKI Incidence Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Show more Clinical Epidemiology

Cited By...

  • Removing Disincentives to Kidney Donation: A Quantitative Analysis
  • The Terrible Toll of the Kidney Shortage
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • The Terrible Toll of the Kidney Shortage
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Keywords

  • kidney donation
  • Economic Analysis
  • kidney transplantation

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Early Access
  • Subject Collections
  • Article Archive
  • ASN Annual Meeting Abstracts

Information for Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Author Resources
  • Editorial Fellowship Program
  • ASN Journal Policies
  • Reuse/Reprint Policy

About

  • JASN
  • ASN
  • ASN Journals
  • ASN Kidney News

Journal Information

  • About JASN
  • JASN Email Alerts
  • JASN Key Impact Information
  • JASN Podcasts
  • JASN RSS Feeds
  • Editorial Board

More Information

  • Advertise
  • ASN Podcasts
  • ASN Publications
  • Become an ASN Member
  • Feedback
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Password/Email Address Changes
  • Subscribe

© 2021 American Society of Nephrology

Print ISSN - 1046-6673 Online ISSN - 1533-3450

Powered by HighWire