Abstract
After 6 years of deliberation, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network recently released a concept document proposing changes to the kidney allocation algorithm, sparking a heated debate about priority-setting of scarce health resources and discrimination. Proponents of the proposal argue that it will result in an additional 15,223 life years following transplant annually for recipients, yet the benefit will not be equally distributed and will likely benefit younger patients. Critics argue that the new model will promote age discrimination and may lead to a further decrease in live kidney donation. If true, these concerns could undermine fairness and damage public trust in the organ allocation system. We address these objections and consider their merit, highlighting both benefits and shortcomings of the proposal. We argue that, despite weaknesses of the proposal and the importance of maintaining consistency in patient and provider expectations over time, the proposal represents a needed first step in balancing equity and efficiency.