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)
Submit a Comment
Please reverse the policy regarding lung allocation.
Please reverse the policy regarding lung allocation.
Stephanie
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 Changing the policy would risk lives. Please prioritize 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,
Stephanie
June 30, 2026
TO: Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network
RE: Lung Continuous Distribution Policy Update
The Association of Organ Procurement Organizations (AOPO) appreciates the opportunity to provide our perspective on the OPTN’s recently published lung continuous distribution policy update.
We believe this policy change will most significantly impact transplant centers and, more importantly, transplant candidates. Our member organ procurement organizations will continue to allocate as directed by the OPTN matching system, and this update does not fundamentally alter how they will perform their work. The transplant programs navigating the waitlist, and the patients whose access to life-saving transplants depends on how those matches are constructed, are the stakeholders most directly affected by this proposal. Their experience and outcomes should be the central lens through which this policy is evaluated.
AOPO recognizes that rescue pathway allocation, or allocation-out-of-sequence (AOOS), has increased since the implementation of continuous distribution, and we agree with the policy for allocation in sequence. Maintaining the integrity of the match sequence is foundational to trust and equity in the system. However, in 2025, there were 11,345 organs recovered nationwide that ultimately were not transplanted. While this proposal focuses on lung allocation, the transplant community should remain mindful of the broader need to maximize organ utilization and the utility of AOOS as a tool to prevent organ non-use.
AOOS is the product of a multitude of factors, and late organ declines represent a significant and underappreciated driver of this problem. Policy changes that adjust geographic weighting and match homogeneity do not address the clinical and logistical realities that cause transplant programs to decline offers late in the process. Reducing AOOS through structural match changes without addressing those upstream drivers risks treating a symptom rather than the underlying disease.
We have concerns that the proposed mechanism for reducing AOOS may come at the expense of the very principles it is intended to protect. Specifically, the proposed adjustments to candidate ABO status and height weighting within the Composite Allocation Score raise significant questions. While these changes may reduce the number of transplants classified as out-of-sequence, it remains unclear whether they will improve overall outcomes for transplant candidates and recipients.
The materials available for public comment do not clearly demonstrate whether candidates who may be ranked lower in the match due to reduced emphasis on ABO compatibility or height will experience improved outcomes under this proposal. Likewise, it remains unclear how the proposed changes may affect access for candidates based on geographic proximity to the donor hospital. The statistical significance and projected patient-level impact of these specific adjustments have not been adequately disclosed in the materials available for public comment. A change of this magnitude should be supported by data before a decision is made.
Systemic policy changes of this scale and consequence deserve to be fully studied, modeled, and disclosed prior to implementation — without exception. Given the potential implications for transplant candidates, the burden should be on demonstrating through transparent analysis that the proposed changes will meaningfully improve patient outcomes and allocation efficiency.
Based on the information presented during the policy development process, it is not clear that the full range of downstream effects has been sufficiently modeled and publicly evaluated. That process should be followed here. While we are encouraged that mortality modeling did not show a significant difference, mortality is not a sufficient proxy for patient impact. Waitlist outcomes, access across geographic and demographic subgroups, and the lived experience of candidates and programs must all be part of a complete analysis.
For these reasons, this policy update should be sent back to the committee for a complete modeling cycle, accompanied by transparent public reporting of projected impacts — including effects on candidate fairness, program access, ABO and height-related outcome disparities, and AOOS pathways. The goals of this update are sound; however, the process by which it has been advanced, and the questions it leaves unanswered, are not yet sufficient to warrant finalizing the changes.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Allison J. Erickson
AOPO President
Chief Administrative Officer
New England Donor Services
Charlie Seymour
State of Residence: New York
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 sister received her first transplant 10 years ago and those could drastically impact her ability to get another one when she needs it!
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,
Charlie Seymour