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
Joe F Garcia
State of Residence: New Mexico
Relationship to Lung Transplant: Lung Transplant Candidate/Recipient
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 been on the lung transplant list for over 3 years. This change will directly affect me by moving me down on the list and making it harder for me to receive new lungs. Please return the CAS point allocation and ratios pre-November 20, 2025 votes.
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,
Joe F Garcia
Diane K Garcia
State of Residence: New Mexico
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 husband, Joe Garcia, has been on a lung transplant list for 3 years and 3 months. He is a hard to match recipient. During this time, I have watched his health decline. This change will bring him down on the list and make it harder to get a match for him, risking his life. We don't know how much time he has left.
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,
Diane K Garcia
HRSA and OPTN needs to listen to the professionals
Paul K. Sun Jr.
State of Residence: North Carolina
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 lung transplant recipients are in a desperate situation. The number of patients needing a transplant far exceeds the number of lungs available for transplant. Their lives depend on getting a transplant. This change will lead to more deaths of patients without improving the system.
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,
Paul K. Sun Jr.
I write in strong support of the proposed update to the Lung Continuous Distribution policy increasing the weight on placement efficiency to 15% with a proportional reduction across the remaining Composite Allocation Score (CAS) attributes.
While allocation out of OPTN sequence (AOOS) remains lower in lung than in some other organs, its very existence is fundamentally inequitable to candidates on the waiting list. Two features of the recent AOOS pattern in lung allocation are particularly concerning. It has been occurring surprisingly early in the match at low allocation sequence numbers (15-20). While one understands AOOS can occur in situations like unstable donors etc. these should be fairly infrequent or rare events. Secondly, the rate fell sharply once HRSA and the OPTN focused attention on it. A behavior that dramatically recedes under scrutiny is consistent with patterns of allocation likely favoring some centers in coordination with OPOs. The OPTN Final Rule requires policies that promote and distribute organs equitably, and a structural policy change is the appropriate response.
The increase in median donor to recipient distance under continuous distribution is often dismissed as a minor concern. It is not minor for less resourced or smaller transplant programs. Greater distances impose logistical and financial burdens on smaller centers, and those burdens fall hardest precisely when such a center has a candidate ranked above the recipient who ultimately benefited from an out-of-sequence placement. Ischemic times have also lengthened as a result although there is little evidence that this has translated into worse outcomes. Addtionally, the centers best positioned to recover lungs over long distances are often those with the resources to contract for advanced preservation and transport technology. The availability of these systems may itself be an independent contributor to AOOS, allowing well-resourced programs to reach distant donors and encourage OPO’s to bypass local or regional candidates for whom such technology would not be necessary. This also materially increases the per-transplant cost of the system, a cost ultimately borne by payers and patients.
I want to directly address the concern that this change strips points from biologically disadvantaged or pediatric candidates. The reduction is applied proportionally and uniformly across every non-efficiency CAS attribute, so the relative weighting among waiting-list survival, post-transplant survival, candidate biology, and patient access remains unchanged. No clinical or equity attribute is singled out. It is also worth noting that these attributes do not share a common point distribution: waiting-list survival uses a convex transform that concentrates points among the sickest candidates and typically dominates the composite score, whereas post-transplant survival is essentially linear and contributes more uniformly. Because the rescaling is a single multiplicative factor, these distributions are preserved intact. The only change is the intended one, a modest increase in placement-efficiency weight that improves locoregional organ distribution and the projected reduction in the median travel distance for organ recovery teams.
Because these changes have been enacted by emergency action ahead of public comment, I strongly support the need for close monitoring of the post-implementation phase outlined in the proposal. Closely tracking waitlist mortality and post-transplant outcomes stratified by medical urgency, blood type, sensitization, and candidate stature will ensure that the increased weight on placement efficiency does not produce any meaningful rise in waitlist mortality or any deterioration in post-transplant survival. I urge that these metrics be reviewed against the pre-implementation baseline at clearly defined intervals (6 months at the very least), and that the results be made transparent to the community.
Respectfully,
Thomas Kaleekal, M.D.
University of Alabama at Birmingham