In the past several years, emphasis on quality metrics in the field of organ transplantation has increased significantly, largely because of the new conditions of participation issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. These regulations directly associate patients' outcomes and measured performance of centers with the distribution of public funding to institutions. Moreover, insurers and marketing ventures have used publicly available outcomes data from transplant centers for business decision making and advertisement purposes. We gave a 10-question survey to attendees of the Transplant Management Forum at the 2009 meeting of the United Network for Organ Sharing to ascertain how centers have responded to the increased oversight of performance. Of 63 responses, 55% indicated a low or near low performance rating at their center in the past 3 years. Respondents from low-performing centers were significantly more likely to indicate increased selection criteria for candidates (81% vs 38%, P = .001) and donors (77% vs 31%, P < .001) as well as alterations in clinical protocols (84% vs 52%, P = .007). Among respondents indicating lost insurance contracts (31%), these differences were also highly significant. Based on respondents' perceptions, outcomes of performance evaluations are associated with significant changes in clinical practice at transplant centers. The transplant community and policy makers should practice vigilance that performance evaluations and regulatory oversight do not inadvertently lead to diminished access to care among viable candidates or decreased transplant volume.

In the past several years, emphasis on quality metrics in the field of organ transplantation has increased significantly, largely because of the new conditions of participation issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. These regulations directly associate patients' outcomes and measured performance of centers with the distribution of public funding to institutions. Moreover, insurers and marketing ventures have used publicly available outcomes data from transplant centers for business decision making and advertisement purposes. We gave a 10-question survey to attendees of the Transplant Management Forum at the 2009 meeting of the United Network for Organ Sharing to ascertain how centers have responded to the increased oversight of performance. Of 63 responses, 55% indicated a low or near low performance rating at their center in the past 3 years. Respondents from low-performing centers were significantly more likely to indicate increased selection criteria for candidates (81% vs 38%, P = .001) and donors (77% vs 31%, P < .001) as well as alterations in clinical protocols (84% vs 52%, P = .007). Among respondents indicating lost insurance contracts (31%), these differences were also highly significant. Based on respondents' perceptions, outcomes of performance evaluations are associated with significant changes in clinical practice at transplant centers. The transplant community and policy makers should practice vigilance that performance evaluations and regulatory oversight do not inadvertently lead to diminished access to care among viable candidates or decreased transplant volume.