Current policy
Every lung transplant candidate receives an individualized lung Composite Allocation Score (CAS). This score determines priority for receiving a lung transplant when donor lung(s) become available. The lung CAS is individual for each candidate and each organ offer. The lung CAS point values represent each of the factors used to match organ offers with transplant candidates (Exhibit 1). The people who have the highest number of points for that organ offer will have the highest priority.
In October 2025, the Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) preliminary analyses documented a rise in allocation out of OPTN sequence (AOOS) that correlates with the implementation of the lung continuous distribution policy in 2023. In response, the OPTN Board of Directors considered potential changes to lung allocation to promote policy compliance and reduce AOOS.
Note: Certain changes described in this proposal were previously implemented following emergency action by the OPTN Board of Directors and are currently in effect while the proposal proceeds through the formal policy process.
Supporting media
Exhibit 1. Current Lung Composite Allocation Score
| Attribute | Definition | % of Available Points |
|---|---|---|
| Waiting List Survival | Expected 1-year waiting list survival | 25 |
| Post-Transplant Outcomes | Expected 5-year post-transplant survival | 25 |
| Candidate Biology | Total of ABO, CPRA, and height points | 15 |
| ABO | Based on percentage of compatible donors by blood type | 5 |
| CPRA | Based on percentage of compatible donors by CPRA | 5 |
| Height | Based on percentage of compatible donors by height | 5 |
| Patient Access | Total of pediatric and prior living donor points | 25 |
| Pediatric | For candidates under 18 years old | 20 |
| Prior Living Donor | For candidates who donated any organ | 5 |
| Placement Efficiency | Total of travel and proximity efficiency points | 10 |
| Travel Efficiency | Based on impact of distance on costs of travel | 5 |
| Proximity Efficiency | Based on impact of distance on other efficiency (time, availability, etc.) | 5 |
Note. Total Score = Waiting List Survival + Post-Transplant Outcomes + Candidate Biology + Patient Access + Placement Efficiency
Acronyms. ABO=ABO blood group system, CPRA=Calculated Panel Reactive Antibody
Proposed changes
- Increasing the weight on placement efficiency from 10% to 15% of the overall score.
- Reducing the weight on all other parts of the score proportionally, including points assigned to pediatric candidates less than 12 years old for waitlist survival and post-transplant outcomes.
- Replacing the existing travel efficiency and proximity efficiency rating scales with a single placement efficiency rating scale to assign points to potential transplant recipients based on the nautical mile distance between the donor hospital and the transplant hospital.
- Lung CAS scores for all lung and heart-lung candidates on the waiting list will be updated to reflect the changes to the lung CAS (Exhibit 2).
- Approved exceptions will remain in effect based on the percentage of available points approved by the Lung Review Board, and the points assigned for each exception will be reduced proportionately to the adjusted goal weights.
Exhibit 2. Revised Lung Composite Allocation Score
| Attribute | Definition | % of Available Points |
|---|---|---|
| Waiting List Survival | Expected 1-year waiting list survival | 23.6111 |
| Post-Transplant Outcomes | Expected 5-year post-transplant survival | 23.6111 |
| Candidate Biology | Total of ABO, CPRA, and height points | 14.1666 |
| ABO | Based on percentage of compatible donors by blood type | 4.7222 |
| CPRA | Based on percentage of compatible donors by CPRA | 4.7222 |
| Height | Based on percentage of compatible donors by height | 4.7222 |
| Patient Access | Total of pediatric and prior living donor points | 23.6111 |
| Pediatric | For candidates under 18 years old | 18.8889 |
| Prior Living Donor | For candidates who donated any organ | 4.7222 |
| Placement Efficiency | Total of travel and proximity efficiency points | 15 |
Note. Total Score = Waiting List Survival + Post-Transplant Outcomes + Candidate Biology + Patient Access + Placement Efficiency
Acronyms. ABO=ABO blood group system, CPRA=Calculated Panel Reactive Antibody
Anticipated impact
- What it's expected to do
- Reduce median travel distance for lungs
- Reduce logistical complexity in lung allocation
- Improve policy compliance
- What it won’t do
- It will not completely alleviate AOOS.
Terms to know
- Allocation out of OPTN sequence (AOOS): An organ allocation event in which an organ is offered, accepted, and/or transplanted outside the established match sequence.
- Composite Allocation Score (CAS): This score determines priority for receiving a lung transplant when donor lung(s) become available.
- Calculated Panel Reactive Antibody (CPRA): A score (0–100%) indicating the percentage of potential donors a patient is immunologically incompatible with due to antibodies.
Read the full proposal (PDF - 354 KB)
Comments
Laura Reynolds State of…
Laura Reynolds
State of Residence: Pennsylvania
Relationship to Lung Transplant: Family Member
Regarding the November 20, 2025 OPTN Board meeting vote to alter the Lung Transplant Continuous Allocation Score (CAS) points and ratios in order to address concerns about Allocation out of Sequence (AOOS).
I am writing to express my strong desire for HRSA/OPTN Board to reverse the decision voted on during the November 20, 2025 Board meeting to remove five points from categories describing a recipient's medical condition and reallocating them to the efficiency category, returning the CAS point allocation and ratios to the pre November 20, 2025 vote levels.
This matters to me because familial pulmonary fibrosis affects my family directly. I strongly believe in evidence-based decision making in clinical settings, and this emergency change appears to prioritize logistical convenience over patient outcomes. There is no evidence that deprioritizing patient criteria in favor of administrative ease will save more lives and it will likely cost them.
Additionally, I share the concerns expressed by the Lung Transplant Foundation letter directed to HRSA and the OPTN Board of Directors, submitted via the Critical Comments and Directives Pathway on April 13, 2026, and signed on to by seventeen distinct lung disease patient advocacy organizations, identifying the following primary concern areas as reasons to oppose this change to the CAS:
- Bucking decades of protocol, no prospective public comment period occurred before this major policy change, and no clinical evidence was supplied justifying the use of the emergency pathway at the time of the vote.
- No clinical rationale was given for ignoring the recommendation of the Lung Committee, which unanimously opposed this change to the CAS, and no solutions were proposed to address the concern that initial modeling suggested that these changes would increase the waitlist mortality for high-risk individuals.
- The change in protocol from extensive modeling before policy changes are implemented to minimal modeling with an intention of catching problems after they occur will endanger lives unnecessarily.
- Patient voices and specialized lung transplant expert opinion should be centered at every stage of OPTN policy development, including the identification of problems, proposed solutions, and the implementation of new policy geared at addressing identified problems.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. I sincerely hope that, based on the consistent and unanimous dissent from lung transplant professionals, lung transplant candidates/recipients, and community members, HRSA and the OPTN Board of Directors will reverse the November 20, 2025 vote and restore the CAS to its previous point and ratio allocation.
Sincerely,
Laura Reynolds
Edie Sperling State of…
Edie Sperling
State of Residence: Oregon
Relationship to Lung Transplant: Living Organ Donor
Regarding the November 20, 2025 OPTN Board meeting vote to alter the Lung Transplant Continuous Allocation Score (CAS) points and ratios in order to address concerns about Allocation out of Sequence (AOOS).
I am writing to express my strong desire for HRSA/OPTN Board to reverse the decision voted on during the November 20, 2025 Board meeting to remove five points from categories describing a recipient's medical condition and reallocating them to the efficiency category, returning the CAS point allocation and ratios to the pre November 20, 2025 vote levels.
This matters to me because I have a friend on the transplant list. She, like everyone else who finds their name on this list, will die without a lung transplant. Doctors are willing to do the transplant, people are signed up as organ donors, and people are waiting on organs so they can live. The process for getting your name listed is intense. Only people who really need lungs are on the list, which means there's no time to waste.
Additionally, I share the concerns expressed by the Lung Transplant Foundation letter directed to HRSA and the OPTN Board of Directors, submitted via the Critical Comments and Directives Pathway on April 13, 2026, and signed on to by seventeen distinct lung disease patient advocacy organizations, identifying the following primary concern areas as reasons to oppose this change to the CAS:
- Bucking decades of protocol, no prospective public comment period occurred before this major policy change, and no clinical evidence was supplied justifying the use of the emergency pathway at the time of the vote.
- No clinical rationale was given for ignoring the recommendation of the Lung Committee, which unanimously opposed this change to the CAS, and no solutions were proposed to address the concern that initial modeling suggested that these changes would increase the waitlist mortality for high-risk individuals.
- The change in protocol from extensive modeling before policy changes are implemented to minimal modeling with an intention of catching problems after they occur will endanger lives unnecessarily.
- Patient voices and specialized lung transplant expert opinion should be centered at every stage of OPTN policy development, including the identification of problems, proposed solutions, and the implementation of new policy geared at addressing identified problems.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. I sincerely hope that, based on the consistent and unanimous dissent from lung transplant professionals, lung transplant candidates/recipients, and community members, HRSA and the OPTN Board of Directors will reverse the November 20, 2025 vote and restore the CAS to its previous point and ratio allocation.
Sincerely,
Edie Sperling, PhD
Eric Burdick State of…
Eric Burdick
State of Residence: Oregon
Relationship to Lung Transplant: Caregiver/Community Member
Regarding the November 20, 2025 OPTN Board meeting vote to alter the Lung Transplant Continuous Allocation Score (CAS) points and ratios in order to address concerns about Allocation out of Sequence (AOOS).
I am writing to express my strong desire for HRSA/OPTN Board to reverse the decision voted on during the November 20, 2025 Board meeting to remove five points from categories describing a recipient's medical condition and reallocating them to the efficiency category, returning the CAS point allocation and ratios to the pre November 20, 2025 vote levels.
This matters to me because My wife got her transplant after 21 days on the list the need was urgent and we got the call for new lungs quickly, the timing was everything for us. Please, don’t change this process. It helps so many live longer fuller lives.
Additionally, I share the concerns expressed by the Lung Transplant Foundation letter directed to HRSA and the OPTN Board of Directors, submitted via the Critical Comments and Directives Pathway on April 13, 2026, and signed on to by seventeen distinct lung disease patient advocacy organizations, identifying the following primary concern areas as reasons to oppose this change to the CAS:
- Bucking decades of protocol, no prospective public comment period occurred before this major policy change, and no clinical evidence was supplied justifying the use of the emergency pathway at the time of the vote.
- No clinical rationale was given for ignoring the recommendation of the Lung Committee, which unanimously opposed this change to the CAS, and no solutions were proposed to address the concern that initial modeling suggested that these changes would increase the waitlist mortality for high-risk individuals.
- The change in protocol from extensive modeling before policy changes are implemented to minimal modeling with an intention of catching problems after they occur will endanger lives unnecessarily.
- Patient voices and specialized lung transplant expert opinion should be centered at every stage of OPTN policy development, including the identification of problems, proposed solutions, and the implementation of new policy geared at addressing identified problems.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. I sincerely hope that, based on the consistent and unanimous dissent from lung transplant professionals, lung transplant candidates/recipients, and community members, HRSA and the OPTN Board of Directors will reverse the November 20, 2025 vote and restore the CAS to its previous point and ratio allocation.
Sincerely,
Eric Burdick
Rachel Garvin State of…
Rachel Garvin
State of Residence: Oregon
Relationship to Lung Transplant: Caregiver/Community Member
Regarding the November 20, 2025 OPTN Board meeting vote to alter the Lung Transplant Continuous Allocation Score (CAS) points and ratios in order to address concerns about Allocation out of Sequence (AOOS).
I am writing to express my strong desire for HRSA/OPTN Board to reverse the decision voted on during the November 20, 2025 Board meeting to remove five points from categories describing a recipient's medical condition and reallocating them to the efficiency category, returning the CAS point allocation and ratios to the pre November 20, 2025 vote levels.
This matters to me because I am the caregiver and sister of a double lung transplant recipient. She received her first transplant nearly 10 years ago, and we are so grateful for the miracle of time that vital transplant added to her life. She is now experiencing chronic rejection and is listed for a second, life-saving double lung transplant. My sister has special factors that make finding her a set of donor lungs more difficult, including her small size. I am furious to learn of the changes to the lung allocation process, which have gone against the unanimous recommendation of the experts in the field, and put my sister at greater risk of death while she is on the waitlist. It is your duty to rectify this situation and to make policy decisions based on data and the real impacts on those most effected.
Additionally, I share the concerns expressed by the Lung Transplant Foundation letter directed to HRSA and the OPTN Board of Directors, submitted via the Critical Comments and Directives Pathway on April 13, 2026, and signed on to by seventeen distinct lung disease patient advocacy organizations, identifying the following primary concern areas as reasons to oppose this change to the CAS:
- Bucking decades of protocol, no prospective public comment period occurred before this major policy change, and no clinical evidence was supplied justifying the use of the emergency pathway at the time of the vote.
- No clinical rationale was given for ignoring the recommendation of the Lung Committee, which unanimously opposed this change to the CAS, and no solutions were proposed to address the concern that initial modeling suggested that these changes would increase the waitlist mortality for high-risk individuals.
- The change in protocol from extensive modeling before policy changes are implemented to minimal modeling with an intention of catching problems after they occur will endanger lives unnecessarily.
- Patient voices and specialized lung transplant expert opinion should be centered at every stage of OPTN policy development, including the identification of problems, proposed solutions, and the implementation of new policy geared at addressing identified problems.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. I sincerely hope that, based on the consistent and unanimous dissent from lung transplant professionals, lung transplant candidates/recipients, and community members, HRSA and the OPTN Board of Directors will reverse the November 20, 2025 vote and restore the CAS to its previous point and ratio allocation.
Sincerely,
Rachel Garvin
Please note an earlier…
Please note an earlier comment published on 5/21 from a sitting member of the OPTN Board of Directors, commenting about how Continuous Distribution relies on concentric circles, when in fact CD was implemented to DO AWAY with concentric circles and hard cutoffs based on things like distance. I feel little comfort knowing that OPTN Board voted on this proposal when at least one member doesn’t have a clear understanding of the policy. For all the talk of “transparency” and being “patient-centered”, this policy change seems to be neither. Previously when such a change was made, there would be work done to educate the community and answer any questions about it, from donation and transplant professionals, as well as patients, but it seems like there was no notice or explanation prior to implementation. This was packaged as an emergency action, which was the excuse given for why there was no time for modeling, but then it took 6 months to be implemented, which seems lacking in urgency. Also, it confuses me why lung allocation out of sequence merited emergency action, but kidney allocation, where the vast majority of AOOS occurs, does not. It is also not clear whether the Board was provided with an actual policy proposal to review before voting. I am not sure anyone would support the idea of Board members hearing a presentation and voting on a policy change without having something in writing in front of them to consider, especially a change that could have a serious impact on some of the most vulnerable patients. It should tell you all you need to know that the OPTN Lung Transplantation Committee was unanimously opposed to this action. Needless to say, I am adamantly opposed to this change and the process (or lack thereof) that led to it.